Pravo na arbitražu

Abstract

Ustavom Republike Srbije (RS), kao i međunarodnim instrumentima za zaštitu ljudskih prava pravo na tužbu se garantuje svima, pa i pravnim subjektima koji su slabog imovinskog stanja. U postupku pred međunarodnom trgovinskom arbitražom to nije slučaj. Zaključenjem punovažnog arbitražnog sporazuma stranke se odriču garancija koje postoje kada postupak vode pred državnim sudovima. S druge strane, zaključenjem punovažnog arbitražnog sporazuma za stranke nastaje pravo na arbitražu. Međutim, u novije vreme državni sudovi ne tolerišu nesposobnost za plaćanje troškova arbitražnog postupka kao razlog zbog čijeg bi se postojanja strankama uskratilo pravo na pravnu zaštitu. Ovakva nesposobnost može da ima za posledicu i prestanak ugovora o arbitraži. Time se otvara i problem određenja direktne međunarodne nadležnosti sudova pred kojima stranke mogu da ostvaruju svoju pravno-zaštitnu potrebu.

This paper deals with the problem of impecuniosity and the problem of refusal to pay the advance on costs in international commercial arbitration as well. Arbitral tribunals generally have a broad discretion to allocate costs in an international commercial arbitration. The power to allocate costs is specifically provided in all major institutional rules and in many national arbitration statutes. Almost all major international arbitration institutions require that the fees and expenses of the arbitrators 'be payable in equal shares' subject to readjustment at any time during the arbitration. The arbitration will dismiss any claim if the parties fail to advance the costs, but 'any party shall be free to pay any other party's share' so its case can proceed to the arbitral tribunal. Such solutions may cause a problem to both the impecunious claimant and impecunious defendant as regard their rights to file their claims before an arbitration tribunal. In such a case, they may face denial of justice. Besides, a not uncommon problem in international arbitration is where a party declines to pay its share of the advance on costs. This can be particularly frustrating for a claiming party where the parties have agreed that arbitration is to be the default procedure for resolving disputes. It is especially the defendant who uses 'guerrilla tactics' to undermine the legitimacy of arbitration procedures. With respect thereto, there is a hole in the system of international commercial arbitration. To close such a hole requires legislative action, because 'access to arbitration' should not be confused with 'access to justice' more generally. Arbitration is consensual and a party, by agreeing to arbitrate, waives his right to access to justice. Bis dato, the problem of failure to pay the advance of costs in international commercial arbitration has been unsatisfactorily solved in the court's proceedings, which aim at controlling the validity of an arbitral award. So, for instance, a party to an arbitration agreement may be deemed to have waived their right to arbitrate a dispute comprehended by this agreement, by involvement in litigation concerning this dispute. Further, a party has by litigating a dispute that is comprehended by an arbitration agreement, committed breach or anticipatory breach of a core term (a condition) in this agreement, thereby entitling the other party to rescind. On the other hand, if a non-payer sabotages an arbitration, it is not fair that the paying party's only alternative is to file suit in court. Some arbitration providers promulgate their own new rules, which entitle the arbitration to render either an interim or a provisional arbitration award by virtue of which the paying party may reimburse a portion of the advance on costs. Finally, if an arbitration agreement became inoperative due to impecuniosity or refusal to bear a portion of the advance of costs of arbitration the question arises as to which state could have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute initially comprehended by arbitration agreement. In the case of impecuniosity of the claimant the choice of fora should be restricted. On the other hand, if the defendant is a non-paying party who used this strategy to delay or to halt the arbitration, the claimant should be entitled to benefit from all possible fora which stay at his disposal.