Odlaganje izvršenja domaće arbitražne odluke

Abstract

Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2011. godine propisivao je da odlaganje izvršenja nije bilo dozvoljeno, što je dovodilo do brojnih problema u praksi. Zbog izričite zabrane odlaganja koju je sadržao tada važeći Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju sudovi su bili primorani, da shodnom primenom odredaba Zakona o parničnom postupku odlažu izvršenje u onim slučajevima u kojima je to bilo opravdano. Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju koji je stupio na snagu 1. jula 2016. godine ponovo je uveo mogućnost odlaganja izvršenja. Zakonsko regulisanje ovog instituta predstavlja korak napred, ali se pri tome mora imati u vidu da je odlaganje izvršenja izuzetak, a ne pravilo, te da odlaganjem izvršenja ne bi smela da se ugrozi sama suština prava na izvršenje u razumnom roku. Izvršenje se može odrediti na osnovu izvršne i na osnovu verodostojne isprave. Kada je reč o izvršenju na osnovu verodostojne isprave samo izjavljivanje prigovora i žalbe odlaže izvršenje rešenja o izvršenju do njegove pravnosnažnosti, što znači da se u fazu sprovođenja izvršenja može preći tek nakon što proteknu rokovi za izjavljivanje ovih pravnih lekova, odnosno tek nakon što se o tim pravnim lekovima pravnosnažno odluči. U postupku izvršenja na osnovu izvršne isprave stvari su bitno različite. Žalba protiv rešenja o izvršenju na osnovu izvršne isprave ne odlaže izvršenje tog rešenja, jer se polazi od toga da je nastanku izvršne isprave redovno prethodio parnični ili drugi kognicijski (ispitni) postupak u kojem se, najčešće u dva stepena, na autoritativan i nesumnjiv način već odlučivalo o potraživanju izvršnog poverioca. Međutim, sve je veći broj izvršnih isprava čijem nastanku nije prethodio ispitni postupak u kojem se odlučivalo o postojanju samog potraživanja, ili ako jeste vođen odgovarajući postupak, onda izvršna isprava koja je u njemu nastala nije prošla kontrolu drugostepenog postupka. Tada se redovno dešava da paralelno teku postupak izvršenja na osnovu izvršne isprave, ali i odgovarajući postupak za njeno stavljanje van snage, pa se postavlja pitanje celishodnosti odlaganja izvršenja u tim situacijama. To može biti slučaj i sa domaćom arbitražnom odlukom kao izvršnom ispravom. Doneto je rešenje o izvršenju na osnovu domaće arbitražne odluke kao izvršne isprave, na osnovu tog rešenja izvršenje se sprovodi, a istovremeno teče postupak po tužbi za poništaj domaće arbitražne odluke. U radu ćemo razmotriti mogućnost odlaganja izvršenja usled podnošenja tužbe za poništaj domaće arbitražne odluke.

This main focus of this paper is to tackle some problems related to enforcement of domestic arbitral award. According to the provisions of Serbian Law on Arbitration domestic arbitral award shall have the same effects as the final judgment of national court and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of Law on Enforcement and Security. Although domestic arbitral award represents enforcement title, there aren't many provisions dealing with enforcement of domestic arbitral award. For the purpose of the Law on Enforcement and Security the decision issued before arbitration shall constitute a court decision. However, that doesn't mean that all provisions of Law on Enforcement and Security dealing with enforcement of judgments and other court decisions can be applied to enforcement of domestic arbitral award. When enforcement creditor files a motion to enforce based on court decision it must be accompanied by certificate of enforceability. That rule doesn't apply to enforcement of domestic arbitral award. Certificate of enforceability is not necessary condition for issuing enforcement order based on domestic arbitral award. If domestic arbitral award has been rendered by an ad hoc arbitration it would be impossible to obtain certificate of enforceability. In these cases it is up to enforcement court to apply the relevant provisions of Law on Enforcement and Security and to determine whether the domestic arbitral award has become enforceable. If the conditions for enforceability of domestic arbitral award have been met the enforcement court shall issue enforcement order. The enforcement debtor may challenge the enforcement order on the ground that enforcement title hasn't become enforceable, and it shall be in the competence of court of appeal to check the enforceability of domestic arbitral award. Second important issue is the procedure for setting aside domestic arbitral award and its impact on enforcement procedure. If enforcement debtor files the lawsuit for setting aside domestic arbitral award he/she will usually request postponement of enforcement procedure. Motion for postponement shall be granted if the enforcement debtor establishes likelihood that enforcement would cause him/her damage which is bigger than the damage that would be done to enforcement creditor by postponement of enforcement. Besides that, reasons that justify postponement have to be proven by official documents or by documents that have been certified in accordance with the law. If all these conditions have been met the enforcement procedure shall be postponed until the procedure for setting aside domestic arbitral award has ended. Bearing in mind that all ordinary and extraordinary legal remedies may be used in procedure for setting aside domestic arbitral award it means that enforcement procedure would be delayed significantly. The parties usually choose to solve their dispute before arbitration because it is more efficient than the court proceedings. The procedural efficiency principle has to be implemented not only in procedure before arbitration tribunal, but also in the course of enforcement. That would require some changes in legislation. The reasons for postponement of enforcement of domestic arbitral award have to be clear and precise. In our view, the enforcement of domestic arbitral award should be postponed only if a first instance court has brought decision granting the request of enforcement debtor to set aside domestic arbitral award and if the enforcement debtor establishes likelihood that enforcement would cause him/her irreparable or hardly reparable damage. In that case, the enforcement should be postponed until the procedure for setting aside domestic arbitral award has finally ended. At the same time, the procedure for setting aside domestic arbitral award has to be redefined by reduction of available legal remedies. These legislative changes will create legal framework for efficient enforcement of domestic arbitral award.