Punovažnost arbitražnog sporazuma u teretnici

Abstract

U radu se razmatra punovažnost arbitražnoe sporazuma zaključenog u okviru ugovora o prevozu, a za koji se smatra da čini jedinstvo sa teretnicom. S obzirom da ugovor o prevozu i teretnica čine jednistvo preko pozivajuće norme u teretnici, postavlja se pitanje da li je arbitražni sporazum obavezujući i za docnijeg zakonitog sticaoca teretnice (koji nije izvorni zaključilac ugovora o prevozu, gde se arbitražna klauzula i nalazi). Dolazi se do zaključka da arbitražni sporazum iz ugovora o prevozu može da bude obavezujući za docnijeg sticaoca teretnice samo ako je, kao takav, unesen u teretnicu, tj. ako ga ona, u barem osnovnim elementima, sadrži. U suprotnom, može se osporiti njegova punovažnost kako sa stanovišta načina zaključenja ugovora (tj. da potonji imalac teretnice uopšte nije bio prisutan priliko zaključenja, pa shodno tome ni ne zna njegovu sadržinu), tako i sa stanovišta forme, jer je nedostaje pismeni ugovor, nego postoji samo teretnica koja se poziva na ugovor (a čiju sadržinu docniji sticalac teretnice ne poznaje do kraja). U prvom delu rada, autor pojmovno određuje teretnicu, te njen odnos sa ugovorom o prevozu povodom koga je izdata, smatrajući važnim da se ustanovi u kojoj meri je teretnica podudarna sa ugovorom. Nakon toga, u drugom delu rada, pojmovno se određuje arbitražni sporazum, te uslovi za njegovu punovažnost, posebno, u pogledu forme. Analizira se zadovoljenost njegove forme u teretnici, a naročiti osvrt se pravi u odnosu na imaoca teretnice koji nije i zaključilac ugovora o prevozu. Na kraju, u zaključku se predlaže de lege ferenda rešenje o sadržinskom prisustvu arbitražne klauzule u teretnici, nasuprot trenutnom upućivanju na ugovor o prevozu u okviru koga se nalazi.

In this article, the author considers validity of arbitration agreement in bill of lading, taking into account that arbitral clause is, actually, contained in contract of carriage. It is assumed that contract of carriage has become integral part of bill of lading, by only printing standard terms and conditions of it on the reverse of bill of lading. That is so regarding the relation between carrier and consignor (shipper, or even consignee), but in the occasion when bill of lading is transferred to the third person who was not initially in contract of carriage, the problems may occur. Indorsee of a bill of lading (as a holder in due course) has not derived his rights from contract of carriage, neither from legal position of its indorser (predecessor) or consignor, but only from bill of lading as documented obligation of carrier. Because of that it's questionable does arbitral clause from contract of carriage may have obligatory effect to indorsee of bill of lading. It is concluded it is possible only when arbitral clause is expressly contained in bill of lading with regard to contract of carriage. To be obligatory for indorsee, it is necessary that arbitral clause would be completely (its content) printed in bill of lading or at least type and place of arbitration. In the first part of article, author analyzes the legal notion and function of bill of lading and its relation to contract of carriage. Afterwards, it is considered arbitration agreement and conditions for its validity, generally and in relationship with contract of carriage and bill of lading. In that part, author tries to highlight problem of legal position of indorsee who is not initially contractor and accordingly has not accepted the arbitral clause. Finally, in the concluding remarks author proposes legally certain solution which consist in request that arbitral clause would be completely contained in bill of lading.