Search

With technological boom and exponential growth in commercial business, the focus of economic forum has shifted its focus to Intellectual Property laws. This extensive growth of IP rights is leading to consequential growth of IP disputes across the globe. Due to the transfer and assignment of IP rights in multiple jurisdictions, it has an international and commercial dimension that makes International Commercial Arbitration an amicable and steady dispute resolution process. However, the question of arbitrability of IP disputes is still uncertain in most jurisdictions and if at all it is arbitrable, another question arises that what kind of IP disputes are arbitrable? The judiciary while, on one hand, is promoting the Arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution but on the other hand is not ready to divulge their powers or stir their authority. The absence of statutory regulation and uncertainty in legal decisions has led the Indian position on arbitrability of IP disputes in limbos. With the issue of IP arbitrability pending before Supreme Court in case of Eros International, the article by understanding the concept of arbitrability will look into various approaches across the globe to deal with the issue so as to achieve certainty and clarity in Indian laws. The article is woven with the thread of public policy and its relevance in settling the issue of arbitrability of IP disputes in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overriding Mandatory Rules (OMR), which claim to be applied regardless of the application of conflict of laws rules, are a widely used yet relatively new concept in the legal literature that has not been thoroughly examined from the perspective of private international law. Due to the fact that international commercial arbitration has become the main forum for resolving contractual disputes, from a theoretical perspective, it is necessary to clarify the approach of arbitration bodies to the issue of OMR and complete the research literature of this field. From a practical perspective, due to Iran's exposure to multiple examples of OMR in international commercial disputes (such as rules on sanctions, consumer protection, competition law, and currency control), understanding the limits of the applicability of OMR, especially third-country, can help to protect national interests of Iran in these disputes. In this study, using a descriptive-analytical research method, library and internet sources related to the subject were reviewed with an emphasis on arbitral awards. The findings of the study indicate that third-country OMR are generally applied with stricter standards than OMR of the governing law, based on conflict of laws analyses and arbitrator's duty to render a binding award. In contrast, the non-application of third-country OMR in arbitration practice has occured due to several reasons: the lack of adherence by arbitrators to conflict of laws rules, the lack of a close connection between the OMR and the dispute, the non-superiority of the goals provided by the OMR over those of the law of the place of arbitration, the facts of the case not falling within the scope of application of OMR, the unacceptable effects and results of applying the OMR, and in some cases, the relevance of OMR to purely national economic and political interests (type of OMR). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Marmara University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In its decision 4A_148/2023, the Swiss Federal Tribunal confirmed the principle of Article 178.3 PILA pursuant to which the validity of an arbitration agreement may not be contested on the grounds that the main contract is invalid (autonomy/separability of arbitration agreement). While incapacity to contract due to a party's minority has an impact both on the validity of the main contract and arbitration agreement, such a conclusion is not mandatory in other situations. Under Swiss law, for instance the capacity to act is a relative concept that must be assessed individually in relation to a specific act at a specific point in time. It is therefore possible that a party may have the required discernment to grasp the meaning and scope of a main contract, but not those of an arbitration agreement, and vice versa. Although the protection of a civilly incapable person is part of the public policy, a setting-aside of an arbitral award based on a violation of public policy is extremely rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 17 October 2023, the French highest administrative court, the Conseil d'État, held that French public entities cannot refer their disputes to international arbitration, subject to derogations provided by express legislative provisions or international conventions. This decision which contradicts the case law of the French Court de Cassation contributes to the creation of two distinct enforcement regimes in France in matters involving public entities, depending on the parties to the arbitration agreement and the subject matter of the contract that gave rise to the dispute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a growing trend in the use of alternative dispute resolution methods ("ADR"), particularly arbitration, on a global scale and Iran is no exception to this trend. In simple terms, arbitrability means that certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration. Mirroring this concept, mediability refers to the capability of disputes to be resolved through mediation. The definition of arbitrability and mediability are subject to significant ambiguity, as there is currently no universally recognized and uniform standard for these concepts. In fact, national laws determine the definitions and concepts of arbitrability and mediability. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which disputes are capable to be resolved through arbitration and mediation, it is necessary to initially examine the current legislative framework. The present article attempts to examine the arbitrability and mediability of disputes within the Iranian legal framework. In doing so, after recalling the background of ADR system in Iran in the first section, the second section will discuss the arbitrability with regard to arbitration-related laws. The third section will successively explore the arbitrability in Iranian legal jurisprudence, clarifying that while some disputes are not inherently non-arbitrable, there are certain limitations on their referral to arbitration. The fourth section will delve into the concept of mediability in Iran. Lastly, the fifth section will conclude the article by positioning the approach of the Iranian legal system towards arbitrability and mediability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences / İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi is the property of Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Following the expansion of trade oversight intensified in recent years by the United States and the European Union; Private settlement of cross-border trade disputes has faced new problems and challenges. One of these measures is the imposition of international sanctions, which have been used repeatedly in our country. The existence of these sanctions, of course, overshadows the contracts and agreements between the sanctioned parties and other individuals, and in many cases makes their implementation difficult or even impossible. In the present article, according to the arbitration rules of international commercial arbitration institutions, including; The Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Court of London, as well as related international conventions, in particular the Convention on the International Sale of Goods, will answer the question of what kinds of effects do sanctions impose on international commercial arbitration. The conclusion of the present study is that sanctions affect international commercial arbitration in five ways: the effect on arbitrators, international arbitration centers, implementation of international arbitral awards, contract law, and contractual parties. Sanctioning states have also generally invoked unilateral sanctions as a rule of "public order" in international commercial arbitrations in order to legally justify sanctions.

The core of the work is a positive-legal analysis of the arbitrability of the exclusion of an LLC member. To justify the positive attitude towards the arbitrability of these proceedings, German jurisprudence and court practice were analysed, since they have been proven to be the most fruitful creators and shapers of the subject of arbitrability in company law and, as the most significant authority on this issue, have created over the years, a series of relevant works and decisions, primarily the trilogy (or tetralogy) of Schiedsfähigkeit/Arbitrability decisions. It has been argued that the possibility of excluding the jurisdiction of courts in proceedings for the exclusion of an LLC member and, instead, of forming an arbitration court is the result of private autonomy in limited liability companies, whose limitations are determined in advance. The paper holds an affirmative position regarding the arbitrability of the exclusion of an LLC member based on the LLC’s articles of organization and the exclusion due to an important reason, because of the objective and subjective arbitrability of the exclusion procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fundamental determinant of the functioning of arbitration is the establishment of a viable alternative to the state judiciary. However, in some cases (due to their special nature) it is necessary for state courts to maintain a monopoly of adjudication. As a result, regulations relating to the substantive scope of arbitrability play a relevant role within the rules governing arbitration. The rules on arbitrability have undergone constant modifications — from the totalitarian times of the People’s Republic of Poland to the modern era. This is in undoubted connection with changes in the scope of the domestic social and economic system. The subject scope of permissibility of arbitration is constantly liberalizing. The changes being introduced are aimed at bringing the domestic regulation of arbitrability in line with international standards. The legislator is also revising the arbitration rules in the scope in question — thus eliminating relevant doubts regarding their interpretation, which is also showing significant importance for the practice of arbitration. Consequently, it seems that one can risk stating that, in the final effect, the analyzed legislative actions have a chance to make arbitration a viable alternative to proceedings before a common court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Marmara University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal Law & Political Sciences (Arabic Version) is the property of Journal of Law & Political Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In a recent judgment regarding the development of the port of Damietta, the Egyptian Court of Cassation held that public policy considerations prevent arbitral tribunals from ruling on Cabinet approvals of certain government contracts. This article provides an overview of the key tenets of the judgment and their impact on government contract arbitration in Middle East. It discusses the essential reasoning of the award and the subsequent judgments, and puts them in the context of previous jurisprudence. A striking feature of the Court of Cassation's decision is its conclusion qualifying the approval of the contract as an administrative decision. As a consequence, the existence and validity of the approval was held to be inarbitrable - even if the arbitration does not concern the approval as such, but rather the financial rights arising out of the concession. This outcome adds to the uncertainties associated with administrative approvals and may render arbitration involving such approvals practically unfeasible. Given the influence of Egyptian jurisprudence, courts elsewhere in the Arab world may be inspired to take a similar stance. Investors entering into such contracts are well-advised to ensure that all necessary approvals clear and unequivocal; parties and arbitrators should be aware that an award may be susceptible to a challenge and enforcement may be necessary outside of Egypt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 139 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which restricts and binds the referral of litigation regarding public and State property to arbitration, for obtaining an approval from the government and the parliament, has led to different views and legal opinions. In general, they can be categorized into “literalist” and “realist” theory”. The result of literalist theory is that article 139 applies to any dispute that on the one hand, there is the State, and it has been agreed upon by arbitration and thus if any dispute exists, it will be resolved by arbitration in which, it should obtain an approval from the government and the parliament, otherwise, the arbitration will not be valid. According to this view, article 139, in general, is not economically beneficial for the State and therefore it must be thought upon. In contrast, there is the realist theory which can be a response to the literalist theory and holds that, with a rational and principled interpretation, the principle can be freed from the problems which are arisen by former theory and also the dynamics of principle 139 is useful for the State in terms of national interest

Copyright of Dreptul is the property of Union of Jurists of Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article highlights issues related to determining the jurisdiction of disputes related to the purchase of goods, works and services to meet state and municipal needs. The author comes to the conclusion that the law enforcement practice and the positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation confirm the possibility of considering disputes arising from contracts related to supplies for state and municipal needs in the framework of arbitration proceedings.

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Split / Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu is the property of Split Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The arbitrability of anti-competition disputes in the Philippines remains to be tested. It is since the Philippine Competition Act is relatively at its infancy, and cases are yet to be brought before the courts. This area entails much complexity considering that competition disputes are by nature imbued with public policy concerns, a mandatory exception for arbitration. This paper aims to examine the arbitrability of competition disputes under the Philippine domestic arbitration regime. After conducting an examination of cases and literature both in the Philippines and abroad, the paper argues that the Philippines may consider the US and French positions as to the arbitrability of competition disputes despite the presence of various public policy concerns. The public policy issues should only be taken into consideration when an arbitral award is brought before judicial bodies for recognition and enforcement and should not bar domestic arbitral bodies from taking cognizance of these disputes. It is to accommodate the state policy regarding alternative means of settling disputes such as arbitration in rendering speedy administration of justice. Whenever an award is granted, the same will be subject to court's intervention for recognition with due respect to the public policy concerns. In so doing, arbitration is being promoted without sacrificing the competition law policy of the Philippines.

Abstract: Concluding of the arbitration agreement is based on the principle of party autonomy but this principle is restricted by public order. In other words, although the arbitration agreement is mainly based on the private agreement of both parties, it is not correct that the common will of both parties have an absolute authority to refer any disputes to arbitration. Sometimes the law forbid or restrict the reference of some disputes to arbitration, and the reason for these are based on the basic concept of public order and interest; thus, the settlement of some disputes are merely on the authority of the courts and if the arbitrators proceed to issue an award about such disputes, that award will not be applicable. This article will outline the opinions of Iranian scholars with regard to the effect of public policy on the arbitration agreements as it could help to understand the floating essence of public policy. In addition, this article set forth to analyses the most important cases in relation to arbitrability which are the Art. 139 of the constitution, bankruptcy claims, family disputes, intellectual property claims, securities claims and also labor and employment contracts.

The paper deals with the issues of legal regulation of arbitrability (admissibility of arbitration proceedings) in the Czech law. In year 1995, arbitration proceedings were made possible also in property disputes of natural persons and started to be frequently used for the solving of such disputes. Arbitrability began to extend also thanks to the case-law of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. Decision-making in the area of consumer disputes was excluded from the arbitration proceedings in year 2016. The arbitrators themselves decide about appropriate powers, i.e. about the possibility of hearing and decision-making through arbitration proceedings. If they arrive at a conclusion that they do not have appropriate powers in the matter, they will decide about this fact by means of a resolution. Lack of arbitrators’ power is a reason for cancellation of an arbitration award by a court of general jurisdiction. The arbitrability institute and the institute of arbitrators’ power are different legal institutes.

The material scope of arbitration in administrative matters has recently been considerably enlarged, especially in regards to the administrative act. It was recognized that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to appreciate the legality of an administrative act. Traditionally, the legality of administrative acts was reserved for state courts. However, the legal incongruity was notorious. Article 180 (1) (c) of the Code of Procedure of the Administrative Courts (CPTA), 2002, provided that arbitral tribunals could enounce "matters relating to administrative acts that could be revoked without grounds for invalidity". We could diagnose two types of legal failures. First, within Administrative Law, it was incomprehensibly admissible to arbitrate the legality of administrative acts pertaining to the contractual sphere and exclude all others from the control of arbitration law. The other flaw suffered by the regime of arbitrability of administrative acts related to the possibility of arbitrability of tax acts3 and the imposition of strong limitations on the control of the legality of administrative acts in Administrative Law. The revision of the CPTA in 2015 implied a change in the legislative paradigm in the matter of administrative arbitration, providing for the possibility by the arbitral tribunals of assessing the legality of the administrative act, thus putting an end to a doctrinal dispute about the admissibility of the same. However, a literal interpretation of the precept would lead us to subsume within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals the assessment of the legality of any administrative act. Considering the legislative scope of the legal prediction enunciated, the present work will have as its objective to answer three key questions. The first is to assess to what extent the arbitral tribunals may rule on the merit and legality of the administrative act. The second is to determine whether all administrative acts are arbitrable. The third concerns the search for a criterion of arbitrability of the administrative act, especially in matters related to legality.

The 2015 reform of Russian arbitration law has introduced a new means of dealing with mandatory rules in arbitration. It has done so by making certain disputes arbitrable where a number of conditions have been met - they are conditionally arbitrable. This article compares the new Russian approach to mandatory rule arbitration to the older second look doctrine as espoused by the US Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Doing business abroad within the framework of commercial agency or distribution agreements presents not only several financial and commercial challenges but also legal ones, raising questions about the applicable law, jurisdiction, and particularly the arbitrability of disputes arising out of commercial agency agreements governed by Jordanian law. The purpose of this article is to highlight selected aspects of Jordanian commercial agency law from the perspective of private international law in Jordan. It aims to discuss the applicable law and jurisdiction pertaining to international commercial agency agreements subject to Law No. 28 of 2001 on Commercial Agents and Intermediaries as a mandatory law. The article highlights the recent different methodological approaches adopted by the Jordanian Court of Cassation in dealing with commercial agency agreements, which can be described as heterogeneous, controversial, and traditional; they are tainted with dogmatic traditions and at odds with the Court's own grundnorms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commercial arbitration and personal data protection is an aspect of the theoretical dispute regarding interference of public law norms in private law or vice versa, sometimes the qualification of influence depending on the branch from which the regulation is analyzed. Rethinking data protection in the European Union has a significant impact on commercial arbitration. In the first part of the article we note the role of data protection rules in arbitration. For the arbitral tribunal, data protection is a public law obligation, which joins its own confidentiality. First of all, it is significant for disclosing the obligations of arbitral tribunals regarding the protection of personal data, for the establishment of technical and organizational measures. Recent documents are analyzed, such as the ICCA-IBA Roadmap to Data Protection in International Arbitration. In the second part, we consider elements of cyber security specific to commercial arbitration. In the third part of the article, we note the role of arbitration in resolving disputes in the field of personal data protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Marmara University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Arbitrability in the context of IPR disputes has gained popularity worldwide. In India, there is no statutory provision that mandates the adoption of ADR when it comes to IPR disputes. The lack of any legislative insight thus stands as an impediment to efficient dispute resolution. The judiciary has also not taken a consistent stand in this regard. As a result, the law on this issue is a scattered version of what it could be. To improve the business environment and IPR protection, it is important to reform the law, keeping in mind the developments that are taking place in jurisdictions across the world. This paper studies the jurisprudence that has developed in India. It analyses the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Booz Allen and Hamilton v SBI Home Finance, its inconsistent application by High Courts, and concludes that there exists scope for codification and uniformity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses approaches to objective arbitrability of antitrust disputes in the European Union, other foreign states and the Republic of Belarus. Particular attention is paid to the landmark cases Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV, CDC v. Akzo Nobel. Based on the results of the analysis made, the authors conclude that, in the absence of a direct prohibition on the consideration of antitrust disputes in the Belarusian legislation by arbitration and lack of law enforcement practice in this area, arising of such disputes and inclusion of arbitration clauses on their settlement in contracts largely depend on the level of the development of the market as well as on the position of arbitration courts. They do not exclude the possibility of revising the national legislation on arbitration so that it included direct provisions on arbitrability of antitrust disputes as it is made in Lithuania and Sweden, at the same time admitting that for a positive attitude to arbitrability of antitrust disputes in the Republic of Belarus the appearance of relevant jurisprudence in this sphere will be enough

Negligence means failure to extend duty of care to whom it is owed. Negligence occurs in all spheres of human life including the medical sphere and that is known as medical negligence. This work was undertaken to examine medical negligence, the elements of medical negligence and its arbitrability and it has through decided cases looked into different jurisdictional stands on medical negligence arbitration and the good and shortcomings of arbitrating medical negligence in such places. The findings of the research reveal that medical negligence is arbitrable and as a matter of fact has been arbitrated in some jurisdictions for over 10 years and that some countries have it embedded in their laws. Furthermore, the article revealed that arbitrability of medical negligence is common in the United States of America, United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. It further stated that arbitration of medical negligence will foster good relationship between the parties and it is less expensive than litigation. The work concluded that it is possible to arbitrate medical negligence and recommended that medical negligence should be arbitrable in all countries, however patients should be allowed time to understand the arbitration agreement and should not be forced into signing the arbitration agreement.

Copyright of Law & Justice Review is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Disputes over validity of shareholder resolutions are among the most typical and common disputes in corporations. Resolution of such disputes in a fast and efficient manner is beneficial for the corporation and its shareholders alike as far as ensuring legal certainty is concerned. Yet, arbitration of this type of disputes remains a contentious issue due to questions over arbitrability, compatibility of arbitration clauses in charters with corporate law and the procedural peculiarities involved. This paper offers an analysis of the debate on those matters in the light of developments in comparative law and presents solutions to eliminate questions marks concerning arbitration of such disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Marmara University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Singapore Arbitration Act and International Arbitration Act have been amended to clarify that disputes in relation to IP rights are capable of being settled by arbitration in Singapore, and that an arbitral award concerning IP rights shall not be considered contrary to public policy. Notably, 1PR disputes were arbitrable in Singapore even before the amendments came into effect. Therefore, the amendments do not change the position in Singapore, but are by way of clarification only. Nevertheless, given the increasing importance of IP in commercial contracts, the amendments are important for solidifying Singapore's position as an arbitration hub in Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado is the property of Fundacion Fernando Fueyo Laneri and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Themis: Revista de Derecho is the property of Themis Asociacion and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The affirmation of resolution through arbitration of commercial disputes in the field of contract law, both at national levels (as an undisputable trend of varying degrees) as well as at the international level, has raised the issue of the possibility of resolving intercompany disputes in this manner, in order to extend the freedom of will of investors from the domain of establishing companies to include the domain of the freedom of choice of a forum for resolving possible disputes arising from numerous legal relations of this kind. However, unlike contracts, with the primacy of free will compared to limitations (the relation of rules and exceptions), the sphere of intercompany relations, although basically contractual by its origin, has, in its functioning, an emphasized need to resolve the conflict of contract and company law in order to make the arbitrability of these disputes realistically possible, while on the other hand, compared to the contract law, the sphere of company law is always more in the focus of attention of national public orders, as a universal institute (regardless of its scope), which represents an obstacle to arbitrability of these disputes. In this paper, the author first analyses the legal nature of the constituent acts of companies (the founding act and statute of a joint stock company) in the context of an arbitration agreement, on which the arbitrability of intercompany disputes can solely be based, finding that their contractual nature is a serious obstacle to mandatory arbitrations of these disputes (if these acts with this clause are adopted by majority of votes), and that the theory of adhesion contracts could be a solution to encourage arbitrability, but only for closed type of companies, while this would not be possible in the case of a public joint stock company, especially in the case of non-professional shareholders because of the need to additionally protect them through consumer law. The author continues by analysing the notion of intercompany disputes and systems of possible objective arbitrability (ratione materiae) of these disputes, finding that the Serbian arbitration law and company law, especially with regard to the possible restrictive concept of 'exclusive jurisdiction of commercial courts' for these disputes, has at least serious reasons for changes in favour of strengthening their arbitrability, with certain necessary individual exclusions in case of the dominance of public order interest. Finally, the author also analyses certain aspects of multiparty nature of the intercompany disputes, especially regarding public joint stock companies, as possible procedural obstacles to their resolution through arbitration, even in cases of their possibly undisputable objective arbitrability.

On May 21st 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide decided whether the application of jurisdiction clauses in actions for damages impedes the effective enforcement of EU competition law. The CJ stayed silent, however, on how to treat arbitration clauses, which similarly to jurisdiction clauses, exclude a default court jurisdiction. The question of how to interpret arbitration agreements in the event of an antitrust violation and subsequent actions for damages remains thus unanswered. In light of the foreseen increase in private enforcement of EU competition law, this problem gains significance. This is because arbitration agreements may be frequently used to govern commercial relationships between antitrust infringers and their injured direct contractors.Against this background, the paper aims to analyse the consequences brought about by the existence of arbitration clauses in the event of actions for antitrust damages. It seeks to answer two questions: whether the claims for antitrust damages can be per se arbitrated, and whether the general arbitration clauses used by the parties to regulate their commercial relations cover the actions for antitrust damages. In order to address these problems, the papers draws attention to the CJ’s interpretation of jurisdiction clauses and the Polish experience of interpreting the scope of arbitration agreements in the field of unfair competition law. The paper reaches the conclusion that neither the arbitration nor EU law prevent arbitrating actions for antitrust damages. Whether a specific arbitration agreement covers actions for antitrust damages or not can be analyzed only with reference to the will of the parties interpreted under applicable national law. It is believed, however, that there are many reasons to adopt an arbitration-friendly interpretation of vague arbitration agreements.

УДК 347.73:341.63Subject. This informational article highlights recent changes to the Russian legislation on arbitration.Purpose. To highlight the most important aspects of arbitration law reform, and examines the effects they will have on the development of arbitration in RussiaMethodology. The author uses a formal-legal method.Results, scope of application. The author distinguishes the difference between constantly acting arbitration courts and arbitration courts ad hoc). The special status of a number of arbitration institutions (the ICAC and MAC at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry), is contrary to the constitutional principle of equality under the law. A major achievement of the new legislation on arbitration courts is expanding the range arbitrarily disputes.Conclusions. The new legislation more clearly prescribed the interaction of arbitration and state courts, including requiring the latter to promote the arbitrators, acting under the regulations of the permanent arbitration institutions in obtaining evidence.In addition, the reform of the arbitration law have left aside the problem of improving the quality of judicial control over arbitration decisions.The arbitration law will still be able to improve the arbitration, to enhance its credibility and attractiveness for the participants of civil turnover.

The present study is aimed for the intellectual property rights holders and specialists in intellectual property law, that are invited to use, promote and implement arbitration as a winning alternative means of solving disputes. The author presents the arbitration as the main method of alternative dispute resolution and analyses the conditions in which arbitration may be used for settling disputes related to intellectual property rights. In this respect, the paper largely presents the main conditions: the dispute has to be liable for settlement by means of arbitration, the parties have to conclude an arbitration agreement, the arbitration agreement has to be valid and effective and the dispute has to be included in the provisions of the arbitration agreement. The author also reviews the types of arbitration used by the World Intellectual Property Organization Centre for Arbitration and Mediation, the World Trade Organization, the Romanian Copyright Office and the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania, presenting some ruling of arbitral tribunals concerning arbitrability issues.

Over the past years, "arbitration" as a means of settling international disputes has gained popularity, but compared to international tax disputes, the possibility of applying the arbitration clause is disputed. After the successful use of arbitration to resolve tax disputes in EU arbitration convention, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2008 and the United Nations (UN) in 2011 were convinced to insert an arbitration clause in their model treaties. Skepticism to Arbitrability of international tax disputes due to its link to the sovereignty rights of states, resulted in utilizing such clauses by few countries in their tax treaties. Shortcomings in current methods of dealing with disputes between Contracting states (bilateral agreement procedure) on avoidance of double taxation agreements and lack of a binding mechanism for resolving disputes through direct negotiations between the two countries, has justified the need for an arbitration clause in these treaties. Regarding the nature of possible disputes arising from double taxation treaties, seems there’s no obstacle to use arbitration clause in Iran’s bilateral tax treaties and in order to draft a proper clause, it is recommended to use one of the model clauses of UN or OECD.

Copyright of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept al Afacerilor is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)