scholarly journals Interpretation of the «Public Policy» Category in Recent Judicial Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 30-42
Author(s):  
Ivan KOSTIASHKIN ◽  
Olena CHERNIAK
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Definition Of

The article studies the concept of «public policy», presents doctrinal definitions of public policy, as well as definitions used in judicial practice, in particular in the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is established that the Ukrainian legislation does not contain a definition of «public policy», but from the analysis of case law it can be concluded that the public policy of any country includes the fundamental principles and principles of justice, morality, state system, political system and economic security, which the state wishes to protect, which means «public policy» is a broad and abstract concept. At the same time, such a position of the legislator, given the case law cited in the article, is justified and reasoned. It is analyzed that the Civil Code of Ukraine lists the grounds on which the transaction can be considered as violating public policy, at the same time, the analysis of case law shows that the category of public policy does not apply to any legal relationship in the state, but only on the essential foundations of law and order. The article also analyzes that the recognition or enforcement of the decisions of an international commercial arbitral tribunal may be denied if the court finds that the recognition and enforcement of this arbitral award is contrary to public policy of Ukraine, as an example listed court cases in which the enforcement of arbitral awards was refused due to a violation of public policy. In view of the above, it is proved in the article that the definition and understanding of the category of public policy is important in recognizing and bringing to the enforcement of international commercial arbitration courts decisions, as well as recognition of transactions as such that violates the public policy, which leads to insignificance of such transactions. It is summarized that today in Ukraine there is no normative definition of the concept of «public policy», and from the analysis of judicial practice we can conclude that judges interpret the concept of «public policy» quite broadly and abstractly. However, given that quite often cases of recognition of a transaction as contrary to public policy (invalid transaction), as well as the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration and foreign courts judgments are «technical» cases brought in order to avoid the liability of a party against whom the decision was made, such an interpretation of the concept of «public policy» gives judges the opportunity to fully investigate, whether transactions or decisions in force violates public policy or the fundamental principles of justice and fairness of the state, without a statutory restriction on the concept of «public policy».

scholarly journals Public policy rule as a ground for refusing in recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in china mainland

2021 ◽  
pp. 251-257
Author(s):  
Qiu Xicheng
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Policy Rule ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Public ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
China Mainland

In China, public policy is commonly defined as “social and public interest” or “public interest”, the understanding and boundaries of which are rather vague, which gives the court more a broad discretion in applying the public policy rule. The article examines the content and development of public order in the legislation of China. The author analyses the practice of application the public policy rule in China and provides statistical data about the ground for refusal of Chinese courts to enforce international commercial arbitration awards based on the information obtained from public databases containing Chinese court decisions. The author also provides examples of court decisions denying recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in mainland China and summarizes the rules for application by the Chinese people’s courts of the public policy rule, established in judicial decisions, and the tendencies in the development of China’s approach towards international commercial arbitration.

SOME ISSUES OF RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS OF ARBITRATION IN UKRAINE ON THE GROUNDS OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliia Klymovych ◽  
◽  
Inessa Shumilo ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Court Practice

The article is dedicated to the examination of such a ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement of decisions of international commercial arbitration in Ukraine as the infringement of public policy. The author describes some approaches to the definition of the content of the term «public policy» basing on the examination of court practice from 2018 to 2020 and doctrinal sources. Particular attention is focused on the determination of the criteria which may be used for identification of the areas of social relations which form public policy. The author also pays attention to some criteria, whose usage may be helpful and effective in determining whether or not the infringement of public policy exists on conditions that a decision of international commercial arbitration is enforced. The author analyses some court decisions in order to inquire the position of national courts when deciding on giving a permission or refusing to recognize and enforce a decision of international commercial arbitration if a disputing party as a ground for refusal indicates the infringement of public policy.

scholarly journals Violation of public order as a ground for refusing to recognize and enforce the decision of the international commercial arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 86-92
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Seryogin
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Bank ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Arbitration Award

The author of the article summarizes at the doctrinal level the following issues regarding the recognition and enforcement of decisions of international commercial arbitration. In particular: (1) whether Ukraine’s public order will be violated by the recognition and enforcement of an international commercial arbitration award, imposed on the National Bank of Ukraine, which was not a party to the proceedings, as the State of Ukraine is represented by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine; (2) whether the public order of Ukraine will be violated if the Budget of Ukraine incurring significant losses in connection with the recognition and enforcement of the decision of the international commercial arbitration; (3) under what conditions the recognition and enforcement of the decision of the international commercial arbitration should be considered as violating the public order of Ukraine.

scholarly journals Bribery and International Commercial Arbitration – the Role of Mandatory Rules and Public Policy

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Pavić
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Body ◽  
Criminal Behaviour ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Public ◽  
Additional Problem ◽  
Mandatory Rules

Although designed to resolve private disputes, usually commercial in nature, arbitration may nevertheless encounter during its course allegations of impropriety and criminal behaviour. In the context of international commercial arbitration, the most common of those are allegations of bribery. However, tribunals may adjudicate only matters of private law and, should they establish existence of bribery, may draw only civil law consequences thereof. An additional problem in this respect is determining the body of rules that will be applicable in defining the very notion of bribery, since some aspects of bribery are almost universally prohibited, while the others are banned only in certain jurisdictions. In determining the law applicable to the matters of bribery, tribunals then face choice-of-law dilemmas. Each of the public policy techniques (overriding mandatory provisions, international and/or transnational) has its strengths and weaknesses. 

Effective judicial protection in judicial cooperation in civil matters and the Court of Justice of the European Union case law: the public policy clause and the absolute default of appearance as denial causes of judgments’ recognition and enforcement in E

2014 ◽  
pp. 147-161
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Protection

The Brussels I Regulation’s re-foundation by the New Brussels I Regulation was thought to secure reciprocal trust on justice administration among Member States and to grant full access to justice for those who inhabit and circulate in its territory. In a Union characterized by circulation freedoms and an internal market existence, those principles justify a situation in which judgments ruled by a Member State’s court are automatically recognised and enforced, in other Member-State, except when the defendant evokes the rules on denial of judgments’ recognition and enforcement. There would not be judicial cooperation and integration’s prosecution without trust – trust must exist among Member States’ courts and it must be felt by EU citizens so they can acknowledge that EU is actively seeking to improve their life and working conditions. The European Commission made constructive efforts to promote an exequatur’s abolition, making recognition and enforcement proceedings on the New Brussels I Regulation simpler (it even proposed to remove the “public policy” clause, which was not accepted). It is necessary to analyse howthe CJEU applies the rules on denial of judgments’ recognition and enforcement to perceive if the principle of an effective judicial protection is fulfilled under New Brussels I Regulation.

scholarly journals MONITORING COURT DECISIONS AS A TOOL FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF STATE INTERESTS IN COURT

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (9) ◽  
pp. 97-102
Author(s):  
Olena Okopnik ◽  
◽  
Maksim Kobzarenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Relevant Concept ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Definition Of

The activity of the prosecutor's office of Ukraine is based on the principles of legality. The tools used by the prosecutor in his work must be normatively defined and enshrined in law. Failure to comply with these conditions may lead to different interpretations of the actions of prosecutors both by lawyers in general and directly by the courts in making decisions. Judicial practice and departmental regulations show that prosecutors use a tool such as "monitoring of court decisions", the definition of which is not enshrined in law. Therefore, the article analyzes the issue of prosecutors' use of such a tool as monitoring court decisions. In particular, the connection between the concept of "monitoring of court decisions by the prosecutor" and such fundamental principles of various forms of proceedings as publicity of the trial and openness of information about the case. The need to disclose the content of the concept of "monitoring of court decisions by the prosecutor" is pointed out. It is noted about the need to define this concept as a tool of the prosecutor, and to distinguish it from the concept of "grounds for representation by the prosecutor of the interests of the state in court." Emphasis is placed on the expediency of normative consolidation of the concept of "monitoring of court decisions by the prosecutor". On the basis of researches of domestic scientists, the author's definition of the concept "monitoring by the prosecutor of court decisions" is given. According to the results of the analysis, the source of monitoring court decisions was recorded. The purpose of monitoring court decisions has been clarified. There is an idea of the need for the prosecutor to ensure the frequency of monitoring. The results of the prosecutor's use of monitoring court decisions are highlighted. The connection between the use of this concept and the exercise of the prosecutor's powers to represent the interests of the state in court has been established. The wording of the relevant concept of "monitoring of court decisions by the prosecutor" gives the legislator the opportunity to use it when making amendments to existing regulations governing the activities of the prosecutor, and can also be used to improve subordinate regulations.

scholarly journals The Influence of the Law of the Country of the Place of Enforcement of the Arbitral Award on the Settlement of Disputes in the International Commercial Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 86-97
Author(s):  
Volodymyr NAHNYBIDA
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
Opposing Party ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
The Impact

The article examines the key aspects of the impact of the law of the place of enforcement of the arbitral award on arbitration and directly on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, given the study of doctrinal positions, regulations and relevant case law. It was found out that the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 refers to the procedural rules of the country of enforcement to settle matters inherent to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards not governed by the Convention, establishing only basic and fairly simple formal requirements for the said procedure, which is one of the strong characteristics of the conventional regime of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In light of this, it is concluded that such an approach is moderate and takes into account the impossibility and lack of practical necessity of unification at the international treaty level of procedural features of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, establishing only basic principles and requirements. It is substantiated that there are two components of the law of the place of enforcement of the arbitral award, which regulate the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards within the relevant jurisdiction, namely substantive and procedural, which, however, are contained in single legal acts — mostly national arbitration laws. The author emphasizes the crucial role of the law of the place of enforcement of the arbitral award in the material and procedural aspects for the procedure of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards within the relevant jurisdiction. It is concluded that the unification of material grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement (in particular, non-arbitrability of the subject matter of the dispute and contradiction of the award to public policy as grounds that can be raised by the competent judicial authority at the place of enforcement ex officio, regardless of reference to them by opposing party), as well as the consolidation of basic procedural requirements and principles is carried out by the New York Convention of 1958, which leaves to the discretion of the national legislature, on the one hand, the settlement of minor aspects of the procedure, but, on the other hand, recognizes its full discretion in determining the limits of objective arbitrability, the content and specific filling of the category of international public policy applicable in the relevant jurisdiction. Keywords: arbitral award, international commercial arbitration, applicable law, arbitration process, public policy.

scholarly journals Public policy: united in diversity... within the marriage?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 1022-1031
Author(s):  
Silvia Marino
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The present paper tackles the development of the notion of public policy in the definition of the concept of marriage. It starts from brief remarks on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of the right to free movement of people and of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to private and family life. Then, it analyses the uncertainties stemming from the national divergences. Further, the impact of the Coman case on the applicability of EU measures on civil judicial cooperation and on the notion of public policy is examined. Conclusively, the paper submits some considerations on the modern function of the public policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document