Most arbitration rules of the leading arbitration institutions have today introduced the possibility of appointing an Emergency Arbitrator who will decide on Interim Measures (including the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, the HKIAC and the SCC).
Sheria hizi ni kuwa inazidi kutumiwa na vyama kuomba hatua ya mpito. The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”) has recently seen a significant increase in the number of requests for SCC Emergency Arbitrator. Kwa mujibu wa taasisi, zaidi ya miezi sita ya kwanza 2016, SCC ameona rekodi ya idadi ya maombi kwa ajili ya uteuzi wa Msuluhishi Dharura. jumla ya 9 maombi wamekuwa filed, of which two were based on investment treaty protection agreements. If a decision on interim measures is needed to provisionally ensure a party’s claim, kabla ya kuanza kwa usuluhishi, chama anaweza kuomba SCC kwa ajili ya uteuzi wa Msuluhishi Dharura kwa mujibu wa SCC Rules. kati 2014 na 2015, SCC ilipokea jumla ya maombi tano tu kwa Msuluhishi Dharura. Kwa maombi yote filed kati ya 1 Januari na 30 Juni 2016, uteuzi wa msuluhishi dharura lilifanywa ndani ya 24 masaa kutoka wakati ombi alikuwa filed. muda kati ya rufaa na uamuzi mbalimbali kati 5 na 8 siku. kesi tatu walikuwa alihitimisha ndani ya 5 siku. kesi sita ulikamilika kwa 6 na 8 siku.
The recent Evrobalt LLC versus the Republic of Moldova Respondent Award on Emergency Measures sheds light on when interim relief will be granted by Emergency Arbitrators.
Msuluhishi Dharura inakanusha Ombi kwa Hatua ya Dharura dhidi ya Moldova
LLC ya Evrobalt, kampuni ya Urusi, alikuwa na hamu ya mguu uamuzi wa utawala iliyopitishwa Machi 2016 na Benki ya Taifa Moldova kwamba kusimamishwa haki za wanahisa fulani katika Moldova Agroindbank akawapa 3 miezi ule wa kusitisha uwekezaji maslahi yao katika benki. Evrobalt kutumika kwa SCC kwa misaada ya dharura mwishoni mwa mwezi Mei, siku nane tu baada ya kufungua taarifa ya mzozo chini ya Russia-Moldova baina mkataba wa uwekezaji.
Wakati akibainisha Ibara kwamba 32 of the SCC Rules affords the Emergency Arbitrator the power to issue interim measures in broad terms: “hatua yoyote ya muda mfupi . . . deem[ed] appropriate", the Emergency Arbitrator indicated that Article 32 of the SCC Rules does not spell out the requirements that must be satisfied in order to issue interim measures; nor does Appendix II of the SCC Rules. Kwa mujibu wa Msuluhishi Dharura, mahitaji hayo ni, hata hivyo, kikubwa uncontroversial, whether one applies Swedish law (as the law of the seat of the present Appendix II proceedings) or international law (as the law which governs the Treaty claims asserted by the Claimant). Makala 17-17A ya UNCITRAL Model sheria juu ya International Commercial Kanuni 2010 codify mahitaji hayo. Ibara 26 of the UNCITRAL Rules reads in material part as follows:
"2. hatua ya muda mfupi ni yoyote hatua ya muda mfupi na ambayo, wakati wowote kabla ya utoaji wa tuzo ambazo mzozo hatimaye aliamua, mahakama arbitral amri chama, kwa mfano na bila ya juu, to:
(a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute;
(b) Take action that would prevent, au kujiepusha na kuchukua hatua ambayo ni uwezekano wa kusababisha, (i) current or imminent harm or (ii) prejudice to the arbitral process itself;
(c) Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or
(d) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.
3. chama kuomba mpito kipimo chini ya aya 2 (a) to (c) shall satisfy the arbitral tribunal that:
(a) Harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted; and
(b) There is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim. uamuzi juu ya uwezekano huu itakuwa si kuathiri uamuzi wa mahakama arbitral katika kufanya uamuzi wowote wa baadae. "
Regarding admissibility, the Emergency Arbitrator indicated that measures with effects equivalent to the definitive relief sought in the main proceedings cannot be sought by way of interim relief. Hiyo itakuwa kiasi kwa kutupa madai juu ya uhalali, ambayo ni ya kweli impermissible chini ya kesi ya dharura. The Emergency Arbitrator retained that Evrobalt’s requests do not amount to any such disposition, kutokana na tabia waziwazi muda ambayo wana, na kwa hiyo wao ni juzu.
Hata hivyo, the Emergency Arbitrator found that the criteria of risk of irrevocable harm or enforceability of the award was not met. The Claimant had asserted that unless the relief requested was granted, hivyo "will irrevocably lose its rights as a shareholder of the Bank (which rights are at the very centre of the Dispute) and any subsequent award in the Claimant’s favour will be rendered effectively unenforceable". The question that the Emergency Arbitrator found to be central was whether the harm that the injunctions sought by the Claimant sought to avert were or were not “vya kutosha reparable na tuzo ya uharibifu". Ilionekana kwamba wote wa madhara, halisi na imminent, associated with the Claimant’s investment could be made good by an award of damages. And the Emergency Arbitrator saw no reason why that harm could not be properly assessed by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.
Dharura Msuluhishi kufikiwa uamuzi huu, ambayo inapatikana chini, and therefore dismissed Claimant’s request without the participation of the Respondent in the proceedings.
– Andrian Beregoi, sheria Aceris