Dispute Resolution
Serbia: Foreign Arbitral Interim Measures in Serbia and Montenegro: Do They Really Work?
How does one enforce an arbitral interim measure if the opposing party refuses to comply?
As with litigation, interim measures are ordered in arbitration to prevent hindrances to the proceedings, the parties’ legitimate interests, or the final arbitral award. The very nature and goal of interim measures is that swift compliance is vital. This – and the fact that arbitrators, unlike state courts, are not backed by public instruments of coercion to enforce their decisions – brings up a challenging question: How does one introduce an arbitral interim measure into a national legal system, give it the force of a court decision, and ensure its swift and efficient enforcement?
Interim measures – a system of its own
While arbitral awards are routinely recognised and enforced worldwide, the specific characteristics of arbitral interim measures dictate they be treated differently from awards.
Like awards, arbitral interim measures are limited to the parties and the subject-matter of the dispute. Crucially, however, arbitral interim measures are limited in time, susceptible to amendments, dependent on the ultimate resolution of the dispute, and must not “affect the discretion of the arbitral tribunal in making any subsequent determination” on the merits of the case.
These characteristics, specifically the lack of finality, are the main obstacles to arbitral interim measures being recognised and enforced by the national courts. Therefore, these inherent features of interim measures are also the main reason that arbitral interim measures may turn out to be unfeasible and sometimes even useless tools in arbitration.
Thus, various jurisdictions either (i) have specific rules adapted to recognition and enforcement of arbitral interim measures, (ii) enforce arbitral interim measures without a framework designed for this purpose, or (iii) are simply unlikely to recognise and enforce arbitral interim measures. Montenegro and Serbia can each fit one of these categories.
Montenegro – statutory framework in place, but courts have yet to apply it
In Montenegro, the Arbitration Act (Zakon o arbitraži) (“MAA”) shows a strong proenforcement bias. Modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 2006, the MAA includes provisions expressly allowing for recognition and enforcement of arbitral interim measures by national courts.
The MAA thus provides limited grounds which may lead to refusal of recognition and enforcement of arbitral interim measures. Essentially, these grounds were transplanted from those intended for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, with adaptations required to acknowledge the specific nature of interim measures.
In the first place, grounds relating to arbitral awards were incorporated (by reference to the relevant article of the same law) in entirety, except for the “lack of finality”, given that interim measures are never final. Specific grounds, adapted to interim measures, were then added. Thus, recognition may be refused if (i) the party requesting such a measure in arbitration did not provide security as ordered by the arbitrator(s); (ii) the interim measure was terminated or suspended by the arbitrator(s), court at the seat of arbitration (if authorised to do so), or by the state whose law was the basis of the interim measure; or (iii) the arbitrator(s) ordered an interim measure which is unknown in Montenegrin law. In the last case, however, the court may still recognise the interim measure in question by amending it in line with Montenegrin law (ie adapting it to its own law), without changing its substance.
The mechanism is yet to be tested in practice, given that the MAA, enacted in 2015, is still quite new. Nonetheless, with the statutory framework in place in Montenegro, arbitral interim measures should be recognised and enforced.
Serbia – with no specific statutory framework, can practice show flexibility?
Unlike Montenegro, Serbia is not among those jurisdictions which provided for a specific statutory framework to deal with this matter. Although enacted in 2006, the Serbian Ar-bitration Act (Zakon o arbitraži) was modelled after the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 and, therefore, does not implement specific provi-sions on recognition and enforcement of arbitral interim measures.
In principle, this would mean that arbitral interim measures are not capable of being recognised and enforced in Serbia. However, it was reported that according to the Supreme Court of Serbia, the fact that a decision is an interim measure is not per se a reason to deny it recognition and enforcement.
Despite this pronouncement of the Supreme Court, in Serbia the recognition and enforcement of arbitral interim measures has not been prominent in practice so far. There-fore, it has yet to be seen whether, on what grounds and to what extent courts would show flexibility in recognising and enforcing arbitral interim measures. The lack of an ex-press statutory framework, the general unfamiliarity of the courts with arbitration, and the overall inconsistency of court practice, would suggest that this effort could prove difficult at best.
In Montenegro, with the statutory framework in place, arbitral interim measures should be recognised and enforced. In Serbia, it has yet to be seen whether, on what grounds and to what extent courts would show flexibility in recognising and enforcing arbitral interim measures.
Strane arbitražne privremene mere u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori: da li zaista deluju?
Kako izvršiti arbitražnu privremenu meru ako suprotna strana odbija da se povinuje?
Kao i u parničnom postupku, privremene mere se u arbitraži određuju kako bi se sprečilo osu-jećenje arbitražnog postupka, legitimnih interesa stranaka ili konačne arbitražne odluke. Sama priroda i cilj privremenih mera nalažu da je brzo povinovanje njihovim odredbama ključno. Upravo zbog toga, kao i zbog činjenice da iza arbitara ne stoji državni aparat prinude, postavlja se pitanje: kako uvesti arbitražnu privremenu meru u nacionalni pravni sistem, dati joj snagu sudske odluke i osigurati njeno brzo i efikasno izvršenje?
Privremene mere – sistem za sebe
Dok se arbitražne odluke rutinski priznaju i izvršavaju širom sveta, arbitražne privremene mere se, zbog svojih specifičnosti, moraju tretirati drugačije.
Kao i arbitražne odluke, arbitražne privremene mere su ograničene na strane u sporu i predmet spora. Međutim, arbitražne privremene mere su vremenski ograničene, podložne izmenama, zavisne od krajnjeg ishoda spora i ne smeju “uticati na diskreciju arbitražnog tribunala u donošenju bilo kakve kasnije odluke” u meritumu.
Ove osobine, a posebno nedostatak konačnosti, predstavljaju osnovne prepreke priznanju i izvršenju arbitražnih privremenih mera pred nacionalnim sudovima. Zbog toga, ove osnovne karakteristike arbitražnih privremenih mera takođe su i glavni razlog zašto one u krajnjem efektu mogu postati krajnje nepraktične, a ponekad čak i beskorisne, za arbitražu.
Stoga, različite jurisdikcije (i) imaju posebna pravila prilagođena priznanju i izvršenju arbitražnih privremenih mera, (ii) priznaju i izvršavaju arbitražne privremene mere bez pravnog okvira stvorenog za ovo pitanje, ili (iii) jednostavno ne priznaju i ne izvršavaju arbitražne privremene mere. I Crna Gora i Srbija pripadaju svaka po jednoj od ovih kategorija.
Crna Gora – zakonski okvir postoji, ali sudovi tek treba da ga primene
U Crnoj Gori Zakon o arbitraži (“CGZA”) generalno pokazuje jaku naklonjenost i podršku priznanju i izvršenju arbitražnih odluka svih vrsta. Rađen po uzoru na UNCITRAL Model zakon o međunarodnoj trgovinskoj arbitraži iz 2006. godine, CGZA sadrži odredbe koje izričito omogućavaju priznanje i izvršenje arbitražnih privremenih mera pred nacionalnim sudovima.
CGZA tako previđa ograničene osnove koji mogu dovesti do odbijanja priznanja i izvršenja arbitražne privremene mere. U suštini, ova ograničenja su preneta iz odredaba o priznanju i izvršenju konačnih arbitražnih odluka, uz neophodna prilagođavanja specifičnoj prirodi privremenih mera.
Na prvom mestu, pozivanjem na odgovarajući član CGZA, u potpunosti su preslikani osnovi koji sprečavaju priznanje i izvršenje konačnih arbitražnih odluka, izuzev naravno “nedostatka konačnosti”, budući da privremene mere nikada ne mogu postati konačne. Zatim su dodati posebni osnovi, prilagođeni privremenim merama. Stoga, priznanje može biti odbijeno ako (i) stranka koja je predložila određivanje privremene mere nije, po naredbi arbitra, položila odgovarajuće obezbeđenje; (ii) je privremena mera prestala ili je obustavljena od strane arbitražnog tribunala ili suda države u kojoj se vodi arbitražni postupak (ako je sud za to ovlašćen) ili države po čijem je pravu privremena mera određena; ili (iii) određenu privremenu meru crnogorsko pravno ne prepoznaje. U ovom poslednjem slučaju, međutim, sud ipak može priznati privremenu meru tako što će je izmeniti u skladu sa propisima Crne Gore (odnosno prilagoditi je svom pravu), ne menjajući njenu suštinu.
Ovaj mehanizam tek treba da bude isproban u praksi, imajući u vidu da je CGZA (usvojen 2015. godine) još uvek nov. Ipak, budući da postoji odgovarajući zakonski okvir u Crnoj Gori, arbitražne privremene mere bi trebalo da se priznaju i izvršavaju.
Srbija – može li se očekivati fleksibilnost u praksi bez posebnog zakonskog okvira?
Za razliku od Crne Gore, Srbija nije predvidela poseban zakonski okvir koji bi regulisao ovo pitanje. Iako je usvojen 2006. godine, srpski Zakon o arbitraži rađen je po uzoru na UNCITRAL Model zakon o međunarodnoj trgovinskoj arbitraži iz 1985. godine, i zato ne sadrži posebne odredbe o priznanju i izvršenju arbitražnih privremenih mera.
U principu, ovo bi značilo da se arbitražne privremene mere ne bi mogle priznati i izvršiti u Srbiji. Međutim, ranije je zabeležen stav Vrhovnog suda Srbije da činjenica da se jednom odlukom određuje privremena mera nije sama po sebi razlog za odbijanje njenog priznanja i izvršenja.
Uprkos ovakvom stavu Vrhovnog suda, priznanje i izvršenje arbitražnih privremenih mera u Srbiji do sada nije bilo istaknuto u praksi. U tom smislu, tek treba da se vidi da li će uopšte, po kom osnovu i u kojoj meri sudovi moći da budu fleksibilni prilikom priznanja i izvršenja arbitražnih privremenih mera. Nedostatak konkretnog pravnog okvira, generalna neupućenost sudova u arbitražne postupke i uopšte nekonzistentnost sudske prakse navode na zaključak da bi priznanje i izvršenje arbitražne privremene mere u Srbiji bilo u najmanju ruku teško.