Protivtužba i kompenzacioni prigovor u arbitražnom sporu

Abstract

Pitanje dopuštenosti protivtužbe pred međunarodnom trgovinskom arbitražom je doskora uglavnom držalo relativno jednostavne formule – analize objektivnog domašaja arbitražnog sporazuma. U pogledu kompenzacionog prigovora, granice dopuštenosti bile su manje jasne i uglavnom su zavisile od odnosa prigovora i tužbenog zahteva. Međutim, donošenjem novih švajcarskih arbitražnih pravila po prvi put se potencijalno proširuje nadležnost arbitraže u pogledu kompenzacionih prigovora, i to tako da može zahvatiti i one prigovore koji su predmet već postojeće prorogacione ili arbitražne klauzule. U tom slučaju postoji realna opasnost da takva atrakcija nadležnosti dovede do konflikta sa sudom ili arbitražom čija je nadležnost ugovorena u pogledu odnosa iz koga potiče kompenzacioni prigovor. Postavlja se pitanje domašaja odluke o kompenzacionom prigovoru, kao i mogućnosti da arbitraža primeni pravila o litispendenciji kako bi izbegla mogućnost potencijalno konfliktnih odluka.

Until recently, admissibility of counterclaims before international commercial arbitrations has been treated in accordance with a relatively simple formula – one had to ascertain the objective scope of the arbitration agreement. With regard to set-off, however, admissibility threshold has been less clear and was mostly dependant on relation between the main claim and set-off. Newly promulgated Swiss Arbitration Rules have, for the first time enabled potential broadening of arbitral jurisdiction over set-off claims enabling Swiss tribunals to adjudicate even those set-offs that are already subject to another arbitration clause or forum selection clause. This might lead to a potentially dangerous situation where such attraction of jurisdiction might lead to a conflict with another tribunal or court which has expressly been designated as competent with regard to relations which give rise to set-off. This triggers later dilemmas with regard to the reach of decisions on set-off and the possibility that the tribunal applies lis pendens rules in order to avoid conflicting decisions.