PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF APPLYING DIFFERENT LEGAL TRADITIONS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS

There is no unified and comprehensive definition of arbitrationin legal science.3 Most of the positive regulations that regulate it, both in theworld and in our country (the Arbitration Act), omit the issue of its definition.However, in science and in legal practice, arbitration is most often definedthrough arbitration dispute, its elements, course and legal effects, and throughindicating differences between arbitration and judicial process, i.e., arbitrationand other alternative dispute resolution methods. It is concluded that arbitrationis an alternative to judicial settlement of a dispute, formed by consensus orconsent of the will of the parties involved, private, and that its decisions arelegally binding and final.4 5 This paperwork is trying to explain differences anddifferent way of conducting in case when participants in arbitration cases arefrom different legal systems, especially differences between the most importantand the most spreader legal systems in the world, European, civil law systemand Anglo-Saxon law (common law). In the second and third chapter, attentionis paid to the procedural and material differences between the continental andthe common law arbitration procedures, especially in differences between theinvestigative (continental legal system) and the common law principles of theproceedings. In the fourth chapter, the difference between the starting of thearbitration procedure was dealt with, while in chapter five, special attentionwas paid to the presentation of evidence in the mentioned legal systems. Thewitnesses and expert witnesses deal with the sixth and seventh chapters of thepaper, while the question of the privacy of the dispute is left behind for the lastchapter of the paper, followed by a conclusion

Компанијскоправни режим сукоба интереса

Предмет докторске дисертације представља истраживање правног режима и садржаја дужности у вези са сукобом интереса у компанијском праву, као и последица повреде тих дужности. Истраживање је фокусирано на сукоб интереса који се односи на конкретизацију дужности лојалности, док су остали примери сукоба интереса у ширем смислу којима је циљ првенствено заштита неких других интереса, а не интереса привредног друштва, изван предмета ове докторске дисертације (нпр. накнаде, преузимање, пробијање правне личности). Предмет истраживања је сукоб интереса у друштвима капитала, али не и друштвима лица, како из разлога обухвата предмета дисертације, тако и из материјалноправних разлога који произилазе из различите природе и својстава друштава капитала и друштава лица. Сукоб интереса у компанијскоправном смислу дефинисан је, између осталог, као сукоб личног интереса лица са посебним дужностима према друштву и интереса привредног друштва. Поред анализе интереса лица са посебним дужностима и интереса привредног друштва, предмет ове докторске дисертације је анализа система посебних дужности у компанијском праву, субјеката дужности, као и лица према којима дужности постоје, а све то у циљу одређивања положаја дужности у вези са сукобом интереса у систему дужности у оквиру компанијског права. Анализиране дужности у вези са сукобом интереса су дужност пријављивања правног посла или радње у којима постоји лични интерес или интерес повезаног лица и дужност избегавања сукоба интереса. На крају, предмет ове докторске дисертације су и последице повреде дужности у вези са сукобом интереса. С обзиром на то да је систем посебних дужности у српском компанијском праву трансплантиран из англосаксонских правних система, општи циљ истраживања је боље разумевање компанијскоправног режима сукоба интереса, односно дужности у вези са сукобом интереса у домаћем компанијском праву.The subject of the present doctoral dissertation is a study of the regulation and the scope of duties in relation to the conflict of interest in company law, as well as of the civil consequences of breach of these duties. The research is focused on the conflict of interest relating to the concretization of duty of loyalty, while other examples of conflict of interest in a broader sense, which are aimed primarily at the protection of other interests, not the interest of the company, remain beyond the scope of this dissertation (e.g. remuneration, takeover, piercing the corporate veil). The subject of the research is conflict of interest in corporations, not the one in partnerships, which is due to the scope of the subject matter and substantive reasons arising from the different nature and features of corporations and partnerships. In the context of company law, conflict of interest is, inter alia, defined as a conflict between personal interest of a person owing duties to the company and the company’s interest. In addition to analysing of the interests of persons owing duties to a company and the interest of the company, the present dissertation aims to examine the system of company law duties, the subjects of duties, as well as persons towards whom duties exist, and all of this with a view to determine the position of duties in relation to the conflict of interest in the system of duties within the company law. The duties relating to conflict of interest that are analyzed are the duty to declare personal interest or interest of a related party in transaction or arrangement and the duty to avoid conflict of interest. Finally, the subject of this dissertation includes the civil consequences of breach of duties in relation to conflict of interest. Given the fact that the system of special duties in the Serbian company law has been transplanted from the common law legal systems, the general objective of the research is to better understand company law regulation of conflict of interest, i.e. duties in relation to the conflict of interest in domestic company law

Revisiting the behavioural patterns of enforcing courts reviewing foreign awards concerning strong public interests under Article V of the New York Convention 1958: from the perspective of foreign awards concerning EU competition law disputes

International commercial arbitration has unquestionably become one of the most commonly used alternative dispute resolutions owing to the high degree of reliable enforceability of arbitral awards, now enshrined in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the ‘New York Convention’). According to the Convention, the enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused (other than for serious procedural violations) only when based upon the award’s incompatibility with the public interest of the enforcing state (further subdivided into the non-arbitrability of the subject matter of the dispute and an award’s violation of the enforcing state’s public policy), and such incompatibility is to be recognised in only rather exceptional circumstances. Although this enforcement-friendly pattern, which restricts significantly the application of a public interest defence, appears workable and generally successful in dealing with arbitral awards in private disputes, its reliability and clarity are inevitably challenged when international arbitration enters the public domain, especially that of competition law. On the one hand, as competition law has generally come to be recognised as an area of significant public policy interest and the NYC does not enumerate subject areas which are excluded from arbitrability, it remains to be seen whether competition law disputes are in fact amenable to resolution by arbitration, which has become a common form of private dispute resolution. At the same time the increasing tendency of ensuring compliance of an award with competition policy may well come to extend the restriction binding the enforcing court and encourage it more proactively to review an arbitral award in the area of competition law disputes. This thesis therefore sets out to analyse these challenges and explore a more balanced and uniform pattern of enforcing foreign awards which concern important public interests by focusing on EU competition law disputes. Moreover, since an arbitral award may be reviewed by a seat court before being brought before an enforcing court, the interrelationship between court of seat and court of enforcement is also considered and analysed. It is found that disputes concerning public interests being arbitrable tallies with the general trend. However, the current prevailing enforcement-friendly pattern may not strike the appropriate balance between enforceability and the developing tendency to ensure compliance of an arbitral award with relevant public policy. A new reviewing pattern is thus proposed

Hryniak, the 2010 Amendments, and the First Stages of a Culture Shift?: The Evolution of Ontario Civil Procedure in the 2010s

This dissertation investigates the effects of amendments to Ontarios Rules of Civil Procedure that came into effect on January 1, 2010 (the 2010 Amendments) and were subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2014 decision (Hryniak). Hryniak concerned summary judgment. However, the dissertation largely concentrates on the effects of Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments outside the summary judgment context, inquiring into whether Hryniaks call for a culture shift and the 2010 Amendments enshrinement of the principle of proportionality have had noticeable effects. It does this by analyzing three aspects of Canadian procedural law that were not amended in 2010 but were amended (or enacted) shortly thereafter and can facilitate or hinder access to justice depending on how they are used: 1) jurisdiction motions; 2) dismissals without an oral hearing, potentially sua sponte; and 3) interlocutory appeals. This more quantitative analysis of case law was complemented by results of qualitative surveys of lawyers about their experiences with Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments. With regard to the three procedural rules analyzed, the dissertation makes suggestions for their re-interpretation to minimize unnecessary interlocutory wrangling. At a broader level, the dissertation concludes that there have been positive effects of Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments, but they have been limited, and tend to have been greatest in areas where tailored amendments in procedural law have occurred rather than in response to broader statements that a culture shift is required in the conduct of litigation. In any event, more work is required outside the realm of civil procedure reform to effectively improve access to civil justice in Canada

Hryniak, the 2010 Amendments, and the First Stages of a Culture Shift?: The Evolution of Ontario Civil Procedure in the 2010s

This dissertation investigates the effects of amendments to Ontarios Rules of Civil Procedure that came into effect on January 1, 2010 (the 2010 Amendments) and were subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2014 decision (Hryniak). Hryniak concerned summary judgment. However, the dissertation largely concentrates on the effects of Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments outside the summary judgment context, inquiring into whether Hryniaks call for a culture shift and the 2010 Amendments enshrinement of the principle of proportionality have had noticeable effects. It does this by analyzing three aspects of Canadian procedural law that were not amended in 2010 but were amended (or enacted) shortly thereafter and can facilitate or hinder access to justice depending on how they are used: 1) jurisdiction motions; 2) dismissals without an oral hearing, potentially sua sponte; and 3) interlocutory appeals. This more quantitative analysis of case law was complemented by results of qualitative surveys of lawyers about their experiences with Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments. With regard to the three procedural rules analyzed, the dissertation makes suggestions for their re-interpretation to minimize unnecessary interlocutory wrangling. At a broader level, the dissertation concludes that there have been positive effects of Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments, but they have been limited, and tend to have been greatest in areas where tailored amendments in procedural law have occurred rather than in response to broader statements that a culture shift is required in the conduct of litigation. In any event, more work is required outside the realm of civil procedure reform to effectively improve access to civil justice in Canada