Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/international-arbitration-in-central-and-eastern-europe
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:20:41+00:00

Document:
1. Numerous countries in the Central and Eastern European (“CEE”) region and in the Commonwealth of Independent States (“CIS”) have made continuous efforts to modernise their arbitration laws, making them compliant with prevailing international arbitration practices and responding to the needs of arbitration users.1 By considering a variety of jurisdictions, this chapter presents key trends and developments that took place over the past year, including legislative changes and amendments to institutional rules, enforcement of arbitration agreements, as well as enforcement and annulment of arbitral awards. Notable investor-state and state-to-state disputes are discussed in the final section of the chapter.
2. The past year has generated numerous developments in the states of the CEE region. Some countries have amended their legislations (like Bulgaria, Lithuania and Poland), some have seen amendments to institutional arbitration rules (like Austria and Russia), and some have done both (like Hungary and Ukraine).
7. The changes that took place in Poland in 2017 resemble those that occurred in Bulgaria. A new set of rules for consumer arbitration was introduced, the goal of which is to reinforce and further protect consumers’ rights in arbitration. The rules cover issues such as the form of an arbitration agreement, grounds for challenging an arbitral award and recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.12 These are further discussed in sections IV and V.
9. The second group of countries is comprised of those in which arbitral institutions have reformed their arbitration rules. Austria is one of the leading hubs of international arbitration in Europe, with a particular focus on the CEE and CIS regions.
12. Lastly, as a signatory to the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge, VIAC aims to improve gender diversity. The new Rules, thus, provide that terms referring to natural persons such as “claimant” or “arbitrator” shall apply to all genders and shall be used in a “gender-specific manner” in practice.22 In 2017, 50% of institutional appointments by VIAC were of women arbitrators.
18. The past year has also seen changes in the legal framework in Ukraine. The legislative reform that started in 2016 resulted in the Law on Amendments to Codes of Commercial, Civil and Administrative Procedures of Ukraine.47 The reform covered issues including arbitrability, enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards (discussed below). The reform also inspired a change of institutional arbitration rules. The International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“ICAC at the UCCI”) and the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“MAC at UCCI”)48 have updated their Rules, which are in force since January 1, 2018. Innovations concern provisions on the Rules’ applicability, expedited proceedings, interim measures, determination of the amount of the claim, and procedural succession.49 Given that amendments to the Rules of MAC at UCCI50 largely resemble those of the Rules of ICAC at the UCCI, only the latter will be discussed in greater detail.
22. While approaches to the issue of arbitrability are far from uniform in the CEE region, certain patterns in recent legislative changes appear to emerge, such as exclusion of consumer disputes from the realm of arbitrable matters.
24. The reason behind this fairly drastic change is an abuse of arbitration proceedings by debt collection corporations, monopolistic companies and public service providers. For a number of years, these entities have been including non-negotiable arbitration clauses in their standard contracts and general terms.65 While this itself is not abuse, some companies created their own arbitral institutions, or so-called “pocket arbitrations”, which rendered awards predominantly in the companies’ favour, sometimes without even informing the consumer.66 The growing number of newly established arbitral institutions dealing mainly with consumer disputes gave rise to further debatable practices, such as “dubious service of documents” to respondents and questionable qualifications of unknown arbitrators appointed by those institutions.67 For all these reasons, the Bulgarian legislator opted to declare consumer disputes non-arbitrable.
27. The recent amendments introduced by the countries of the CEE region clarify the requirements for consent to arbitration. Some countries went further, by making those requirements more stringent than they used to be.
29. In March 2017, the Polish Supreme Court ruled on an agent’s authority to enter into arbitration agreements. The Court refused to recognise and enforce an arbitration award because it found that the agent lacked the requisite authority. The contract was concluded through an exchange of electronic documents, none of which showed that the agent had been authorised.79 The Court held that, if by no other means, the agent should have at least been authorised in the same manner. While the Court’s ruling was specific to arbitration agreements, it has wider implications as it reaffirms that Polish law does not recognise general presumed authority.
32. Legislators across the CEE region have taken different approaches to the issues of annulment and enforcement of arbitral awards.
33. While it is not unusual for institutional rules to link the tribunal’s performance of their duties to their remuneration (the most recent example being the new VIAC Rules, discussed above), the new Hungarian Arbitration Act goes one step further by expressly linking arbitrators’ fees to the outcome of setting-aside proceedings. The new law requires arbitrators to reimburse their fees to the parties if the award they had rendered fails to survive scrutiny by the courts.85 Hungary seems to be the only state in the CEE region to adopt this approach.
36. In terms of the enforcement of awards, the Bulgarian Parliament introduced two key changes regarding writs of execution of arbitral awards by domestic courts. The first change relates to the designated body that is empowered to issue such writs. First, the Sofia City Court no longer has exclusive competence to issue a writ of execution for arbitral awards. The amended legislation grants this authority to any competent district court (i.e. a district court at the award debtor’s domicile).92 Second, state courts may now examine whether the case was properly subject to arbitration and whether the dispute in question was indeed arbitrable before issuing the writ of execution. It is suggested that this is a form of state control over arbitration,93 which adds a second prong to the test that arbitral awards ought to pass in order to be recognised and enforced.
44. A large portion of disputes arose in the energy sector, and states from Central and Eastern Europe have also contributed to the increased Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”) case-load.113 Similar to the claims brought against Spain and Italy114 for reforms to their solar energy subsidy regimes, investors advanced claims against Bulgaria115 and the Czech Republic.116 Although most cases are pending, tribunals in Wirtgen v. Czech Republic and Antaris Solar v. Czech Republic have rendered awards.
46. The CJEU’s reasoning, while going against the opinion of the Advocate General, mirrors the European Commission’s views as previously expressed on numerous occasions in its amicus curiae briefs in various investor-state arbitrations.121 As such, it is doubtful whether tribunals, in particular under instruments like ICSID and the ECT, will be persuaded to change the long-standing precedent that such tribunals operate independently from EU law and so do not create, with their decisions, any incompatibility with EU law either. Enforcement of awards based on intra-EU BITs will likely become more difficult after Achmea, because the CJEU’s position may have to be taken into account by EU Member State courts as a matter of public policy exception under the New York Convention, although ICSID offers an independent and directly-applicable enforcement regime that does not allow for a reconsideration of public policy at the enforcement stage.
49. The territorial and maritime dispute between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia127 originated after the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991, when the former republics omitted to delineate their borders. On June 29, 2017, five years after the start of this highly publicised dispute, the five-member PCA tribunal rendered a final award.
51. Specifically, the tribunal prescribed a regime designed to safeguard freedom of communication, which included “freedoms of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea”,132 except for “the freedom to explore, conserve or manage the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters or the seabed or the subsoil in the Junction Area”.133 Croatia retained the rights “to adopt laws and regulations applicable to non-Croatian ships and aircraft in the Junction Area”134 and to “respond to a request made by the master of a ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State for the assistance of the Croatian authorities and also, exceptionally, […] the right to exercise in the Junction Area powers under UNCLOS Article 221 in respect of maritime casualties”.135 While Croatia also retained its rights “to enforce its laws and regulations in all other areas of its territorial sea and other maritime zones”,136 it received no such prerogatives in the Junction Area.
The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Dina Prokic and Simona Valkova in the preparation of this chapter.
1. I. Knoll-Tudor, Arbitrating with States in CEE and CIS, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, May 8, 2018, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/05/08/arbitrating-states-cee-cis/.
2. The International Commercial Arbitration Act of the Republic of Bulgaria (“ICAA”), as amended in 2017, available online in Bulgarian at: https://www.bcci.bg/intlaw.html#it7.
3. The Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Bulgaria, as amended in 2017, available online in Bulgarian at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/ru/bg/bg070ru.pdf.
4. D. Dragiev, Bulgaria Reforms Arbitration Law by Imposing More Control and Restrictions, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, February 8, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/02/08/bulgaria-reforms-arbitration-law-by-imposing-more-control-and-restrictions/.
5. The ICAA, Article 52.
6. A. Ganev and T. Bayraktarova, Key Amendments to Bulgarian Arbitration Law, Publication of the International Bar Association Legal Practice Division, Vol. 22(1), June 2017, available online at: http://www.dgkv.com/uf/publications/Arbitration%20Newsletter%20June%202017%20Vol%2022%20No%201.pdf.
7. The ICAA, Article 11.
8. The ICAA, Article 52(1).
9. The ICAA, Article 52(2), (4) and (5).
10. The ICAA, Article 31(2).
11. The ICAA, Article 46a.
12. R. Kos and M. Durbas, Poland, The European Arbitration Review 2018, October 13, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/the-european-arbitration-review-2018/1148937/poland.
13. Lietuvos Arbitražo Teismas, Amendments to the Law on Commercial Arbitration of the Republic of Lithuania, June 29, 2017, available online at: https://arbitrazoteismas.lt/en/news/isigalioja-lietuvos-respublikos-komercinio-arbitrazo-istatymo-pakeitimai/.
15. P. Docka, Lithuania, International Arbitration 2018, available online at: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/lithuania.
16. C. Konrad and P. Peters, Austria, The European Arbitration Review 2018, October 12, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/the-european-arbitration-review-2018/1148887/austria.
17. Vienna International Arbitral Centre Rules of Arbitration and Mediation 2018 (“VIAC Rules”), available online at: http://www.viac.eu/en/arbitration/arbitration-rules-vienna/93-schiedsverfahren/wiener-regeln/374-new-vienna-rules-2018; see also, Vienna International Arbitral Centre Rules of Arbitration and Mediation 2018, Annex 3.
18. 2018 VIAC Rules, Articles 16(6), 28(1), and 38(2); C. Konrad and P. Peters, Austria, The European Arbitration Review 2018, October 12, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/the-european-arbitration-review-2018/1148887/austria; L. Yong, VIAC Unveils New Rules, Global Arbitration Review, December 21, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1151942/viac-unveils-new-rules.
19. 2018 VIAC Rules, Articles 44(7) and 44(10).
20. L. Yong, VIAC Unveils New Rules, Global Arbitration Review, December 21, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1151942/viac-unveils-new-rules.
21. 2018 VIAC Rules, Article 33; See also, L. Yong, VIAC Unveils New Rules, Global Arbitration Review, December 21, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1151942/viac-unveils-new-rules.
22. 2018 VIAC Rules, Article 6.
23. Russian Arbitration Center, Arbitration Center at the Institute of Modern Arbitration is Officially Renamed to Russian Arbitration Center, April 16, 2018, available online at: https://centerarbitr.ru/en/2018/04/16/rac-at-rima/.
24. A. Bilbow, Russian Arbitral Centre has Baltic Ambitions, Commercial Dispute Resolution, January 4, 2018, available online at: https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/siac/7853-russian-arbitral-centre-has-baltic-ambitions.
25. Arbitral Centre opens in Russia’s Far East, Global Arbitration Review, September 8, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1147211/arbitral-centre-opens-in-russias-far-east; 2017’s hearing Centre News, Global Arbitration Review, December 5, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/guide-to-regional-arbitration-volume-6-2018/1151398/2017s-hearing-centre-news.
26. A. Bilbow, Russian Arbitral Centre has Baltic Ambitions, Commercial Dispute Resolution, January 4, 2018, available online at: https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/siac/7853-russian-arbitral-centre-has-baltic-ambitions.
27. 2017 Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Center of the Autonomous Non-Profit Organisation “Institute of Modern Arbitration”, available online at: https://centerarbitr.ru/files/arbitration/Arbitration%20Rules%2020092017%20eng.pdf.
28. Russian Arbitration Center, Advantages, available online at: http://centerarbitr.ru/en/advantages/.
29. Russian Arbitration Center, New Design and Amended Arbitration Rules, October 17, 2017, available online at: http://centerarbitr.ru/en/2017/10/17/new/.
30. Russian Arbitration Center, Requirements for Arbitrators, available online at: http://centerarbitr.ru/en/arbitrators-2/demands/.
31. The 2017 Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court were discussed in the previous edition of this guide. See F. Schwarz and K. Khripkova, International Arbitration in Central and Eastern Europe: An Overview and Key Developments, in The International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration 2017 (14th ed.), 144, available online at: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration/international-arbitration-2017#general-chapters.
32. 2017 Rules of Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russia (“MAC Rules”), available online at: http://mac.tpprf.ru/en/rules/; D. Zhdan-Pushkina, Review of new Rules of the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, October 10, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/10/10/russia-maritime/.
33. MAC Rules, §§ 4, 7.
34. MAC Rules, § 21.
35. MAC Rules, § 30.
36. J. Antal and D. Zlati, The 2018 Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook: Hungary,11th ed., p. 1.
37. J. Antal and D. Zlati, The 2018 Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook: Hungary,11th ed., p. 2; CMS, New Arbitration Act just adopted in Hungary,May 31, 2017, available online at: http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2017/05/new-arbitration-act-just-adopted-in-hungary.
38. J. Antal and D. Zlati, The 2018 Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook: Hungary,11th ed., p. 2.
40. Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Court of Arbitration, The Reform of the Arbitration Court, available online at: https://www.mkik.hu/en/magyar-kereskedelmi-es-iparkamara/court-of-arbitration-2071; J. Antal and D. Zlati, The 2018 Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook: Hungary,11th ed., p. 4.
41. 2018 Rules of Proceedings of the Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Article 33.
42. 2018 Rules of Proceedings of the Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, available online at: https://www.mkik.hu/en/magyar-kereskedelmi-es-iparkamara/rules-of-proceedings-2018-16302.
43. K. Hetényi and A. Bognár, Hungary: New Arbitration Rules of the HCCI,Kluwer Arbitration Blog, March 9, 2018, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/03/09/voestalpine-schienen-gmbh-v-dmrc-tending-towards-international-standards-impartiality-india/.
44. 2018 Rules of Proceedings of the Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Article 36.
46. Ibid, Annex 1 – Sub-Rules of Expedited Proceedings, Articles 52(8), 52(11).
47. Law on Amendments to Codes of Commercial, Civil and Administrative Procedures of Ukraine, available in Ukrainian (Закон України про внесення змін до Господарського процесуального кодексу України, Цивільного процесуального кодексу України, Кодексу адміністративного судочинства України та інших законодавчих актів, “Відомості Верховної Ради” (ВВР), 2017, № 48, p. 436), at: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2147-19/stru/paran156#n156; U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Ukraine Revises its Arbitration Law, Introduces New Arbitration Rules, November 27, 2017, available online at: http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/ukraine-revises-its-arbitration-law--introduces-new-arbitration-rules; CIS Arbitration, Arbitration Reform in Ukraine: New Possibilities for Arbitration Users, February 8, 2018, available online at: http://www.cisarbitration.com/2018/02/08/arbitration-reform-in-ukraine-new-possibilities-for-arbitration-users/.
48. 2018 Rules of the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, (“MAC at UCCI”), available online at: http://arb.ucci.org.ua/mac/en/rules.html.
49. L. Yong, Ukrainian Centre Revamps Rules, Global Arbitration Review, March 15, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1166673/ukrainian-centre-revamps-rules; O. Didkovskiy, D. Shemelin and K. Shokalo, Ukraine: Arbitration, The In-House Lawyer, Spring 2018, available online at: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/practice-areas/international-arbitration-2nd-edition-3/ukraine-arbitration/.
50. 2018 Rules of the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Articles 2, 15, 23, 25–29, 45.
61. The Code of Civil Procedure of The Republic of Bulgaria, as amended in 2017, available online in Bulgarian at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/ru/bg/bg070ru.pdf.
62. A. Ganev and T. Bayraktarova, Key Amendments to Bulgarian Arbitration Law, Publication of the International Bar Association Legal Practice Division, Vol. 22(1), June 2017, available online at: http://www.dgkv.com/uf/publications/Arbitration%20Newsletter%20June%202017%20Vol%2022%20No%201.pdf.
63. The Consumer Protection Act of the Republic of Bulgaria, as amended in 2018, Article 3(4), available online in Bulgarian at: https://lex.bg/index.php/laws/ldoc/2135513678.
64. The ICAA, Articles 53 and 54.
65. V. Hristova, Changes in the Arbitration Law: Greater Certainty for Consumers Comes with Greater Control over Arbitration in Bulgaria, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, June 26, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/06/26/arbitral-women/.
67. D. Dragiev, Bulgaria Reforms Arbitration Law by Imposing More Control and Restrictions, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, February 8, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/02/08/bulgaria-reforms-arbitration-law-by-imposing-more-control-and-restrictions/.
68. Z. Novák, New Arbitration Act in Hungary,Kluwer Arbitration Blog, October 15, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/10/15/new-arbitration-act-hungary/.
70. Law on Amendments to Codes of Commercial, Civil and Administrative Procedures of Ukraine, available in Ukrainian (Закон України про внесення змін до Господарського процесуального кодексу України, Цивільного процесуального кодексу України, Кодексу адміністративного судочинства України та інших законодавчих актів, “Відомості Верховної Ради” (ВВР), 2017, № 48, p. 436), http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2147-19/stru/paran156#n156.
71. U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Ukraine Revises its Arbitration Law, Introduces New Arbitration Rules, November 27, 2017, available online at: http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/ukraine-revises-its-arbitration-law--introduces-new-arbitration-rules; for a commentary on proposed amendments on arbitrability, see O. M. Frolov, Arbitrability of Disputes Arising Out of Public Procurement Agreements in Ukraine: Perspectives after Draft Law No. 5232 Becomes Law, Prikarpat’sky Yuridichny Visnyk, http://www.pjv.nuoua.od.ua/v2_2017/9.pdf.
72. The Commercial Code of Procedure of Ukraine, Articles 22.1(2) and 20.1(2), discussed in U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Ukraine revises its arbitration law, introduces new arbitration rules, dated November 27, 2017, available online at: http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/ukraine-revises-its-arbitration-law--introduces-new-arbitration-rules.
73. Ibid., Articles 22.1(2) and 20.1(7)–(13).
74. Ibid., Articles 22.1(2) and 20.1(3).
77. A. Ganev and T. Bayraktarova, Key Amendments to Bulgarian Arbitration Law, Publication of the International Bar Association Legal Practice Division, Vol. 22(1), June 2017, available online at: http://www.dgkv.com/uf/publications/Arbitration%20Newsletter%20June%202017%20Vol%2022%20No%201.pdf.
78. The ICAA, Article 7(3).
79. Decision of the Polish Supreme Court of 2 March 2017 (V CSK 392/16), discussed in R. Kos and M. Durbas, Poland, The European Arbitration Review 2018, October 31, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/the-european-arbitration-review-2018/1148937/poland.
80. Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes and Amending Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 and Directive No. 2009/22/EC, Official Journal of the European Union, June 18, 2013, available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0011&from=EN.
81. R. Kos and M. Durbas, Poland, The European Arbitration Review 2018, October 13, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/the-european-arbitration-review-2018/1148937/poland; See also, M. Orecki, Development of Consumer Arbitration in Poland – Further Amendments to the Polish Arbitration Law, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, October 10, 2016, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/10/10/development-consumer-arbitration-poland-amendments-polish-arbitration-law/.
82. The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Poland, as amended in 2017, available online at: http://arbitration-poland.com/legal-acts/139,polish_civil_procedure_code_-_act_of_17_november_1964__valid_from_10_january_2017_.html.
83. R. Kos and M. Durbas, Poland, The European Arbitration Review 2018, October 13, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/the-european-arbitration-review-2018/1148937/poland.
84. U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Ukraine Revises its Arbitration Law, Introduces New Arbitration Rules, November 27, 2017, available online at: http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/ukraine-revises-its-arbitration-law--introduces-new-arbitration-rules.
85. Z. Novák, New Arbitration Act in Hungary,Kluwer Arbitration Blog, October 15, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/10/15/new-arbitration-act-hungary/.
86. The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Poland, Article 1194(3).
89. The ICAA, Article 47(3).
90. D. Dragiev, Bulgaria Reforms Arbitration Law by Imposing More Control and Restrictions, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, February 8, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/02/08/bulgaria-reforms-arbitration-law-by-imposing-more-control-and-restrictions/.
91. The ICAA, Article 51(2) and (3).
92. The ICAA, Article 51(1).
93. D. Dragiev, Bulgaria Reforms Arbitration Law by Imposing More Control and Restrictions, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, February 8, 2017, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/02/08/bulgaria-reforms-arbitration-law-by-imposing-more-control-and-restrictions/.
94. Law on Amendments to Codes of Commercial, Civil and Administrative Procedures of Ukraine, available in Ukrainian (Закон України про внесення змін до Господарського процесуального кодексу України, Цивільного процесуального кодексу України, Кодексу адміністративного судочинства України та інших законодавчих актів, “Відомості Верховної Ради” (ВВР), 2017, № 48, p. 436), at: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2147-19/stru/paran156#n156; U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Ukraine Revises its Arbitration Law, Introduces New Arbitration Rules, November 27, 2017, available online at: http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/ukraine-revises-its-arbitration-law--introduces-new-arbitration-rules; CIS Arbitration, Arbitration Reform in Ukraine: New Possibilities for Arbitration Users, February 8, 2018, available online at: http://www.cisarbitration.com/2018/02/08/arbitration-reform-in-ukraine-new-possibilities-for-arbitration-users/.
95. U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Ukraine Revises its Arbitration Law, Introduces New Arbitration Rules, November 27, 2017, available online at: http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/ukraine-revises-its-arbitration-law--introduces-new-arbitration-rules.
96. I. Knoll-Tudor and O. Soloviov, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Ukraine: The Impact of the New Procedural Codes, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, January 15, 2018, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/15/recognition-enforcement-foreign-arbitral-awards-ukraine-impact-new-procedural-codes/.
99. Decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 15 June 2017, discussed in P. Docka, International Arbitration 2018: Lithuania, Global Legal Insights, available online at: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/lithuania.
100. OAO Tatneft v. Ukraine, Award on the Merits, PCA administered case under the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, July 29, 2014, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8622.pdf.
101. RAPSI, Russian Supreme Court dismisses Ukraine’s appeal in dispute over Tatneft payment, November 1, 2017, available online at: http://www.rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20171101/280768695.html.
102. Arbitrazh Court of Moscow in relation to enforcement request of Tatneft, June 27, 2017, available online at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9185.pdf; D. Thomson, Moscow Court Blocks Enforcement Against Ukrainian State Assets, Global Arbitration Review, July 4, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1143958/moscow-court-blocks-enforcement-against-ukrainian-state-assets.
103. Decision of the Moscow District Commercial Court, Case No. A40-67511/2017, August 29, 2017, available online in Russian at: http://kad.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/f541a5b1-ebae-4581-83f9-461efa202274/67c90ee9-7a8e-40b6-8856-915c483ece82/A40-67511-2017_20170829_Reshenija_i_postanovlenija.pdf; T. Jones, Russia’s Top Court Declines Ukraine’s Appeal Over Treaty Award, Global Arbitration Review, November 3, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1149764/russia%E2%80%99s-top-court-declines-ukraine%E2%80%99s-appeal-over-treaty-award.
104. Case No. A40-67511/2017, p. 4.
108. T. Jones, Russia’s Top Court Declines Ukraine’s Appeal Over Treaty Award, Global Arbitration Review, November 3, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1149764/russia%E2%80%99s-top-court-declines-ukraine%E2%80%99s-appeal-over-treaty-award; “Верховный суд отклонил жалобу Украины на пересмотр иска «Татнефти»”, Pravo.ru, November 1, 2017, available online at: https://pravo.ru/news/view/145544/; “«Договор дороже денег». Российский суд отказал Украине в деле против Татнефти”, NewsNation, December 19, 2017, available online at: https://newsnation.ru/19/12/2017/dogovor-dorozhe-deneg-rossijskij-sud-otkazal-ukraine-v-dele-protiv-tatnefti/.
109. Supreme Court of Russian Federation, No. 305-EC17-18182, October 31, 2017, p. 2, available online in Russian at: http://kad.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/f541a5b1-ebae-4581-83f9-461efa202274/8d9685cb-6195-4710-b075-4205bbc440eb/A40-67511-2017_20171031_Opredelenie.pdf.
110. The ICSID Caseload – Statistics, Issue 2018-1, p. 26.
111. In 2017, ICSID registered cases against the following states: Albania; Croatia; the Czech Republic; Hungary; Kosovo; Latvia; FYR of Macedonia; Montenegro; and Serbia. See The ICSID Caseload – Statistics, Issue 2018-1, p. 27.
112. Delta Belarus Holding BV v. Republic of Belarus, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/9, available online at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/18/9; Grand Express v. Republic of Belarus, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/18/1, available online at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB(AF)/18/1. See also L. Roddy, Belarus hit with first known treaty claims,Global Arbitration Review, February 1, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1153298/belarus-hit-with-first-known-treaty-claims; C. Sanderson, New ICSID claims against Belarus and Serbia, Global Arbitration Review, March 23, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1167179/new-icsid-claims-against-belarus-and-serbia.
113. K. Hober, Chapter 8: Overview of Energy Charter Treaty Cases, in M. Scherer (ed.), International Arbitration in the Energy Sector (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 180–181; G. Coop and I. Seif, “Chapter 10: ECT and States’ Right to Regulate” in Maxi Scherer (ed.), International Arbitration in the Energy Sector (Oxford University Press, 2018), 222–223; Norah Gallagher, “Chapter 11: ECT and Renewable Energy Disputes” in M. Scherer (ed.), International Arbitration in the Energy Sector (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 259.
114. G. Coop and I. Seif, Chapter 10: ECT and States’ Right to Regulate, in M. Scherer (ed.), International Arbitration in the Energy Sector (Oxford University Press, 2018), 222-223; N. Gallagher, Chapter 11: ECT and Renewable Energy Disputes, in M. Scherer (ed.), International Arbitration in the Energy Sector (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 259.
115. ASF Renewable Energy Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/1; EVN AG v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/17; ENERGO-PRO v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/19; Čez v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/24.
116. Antaris Solar and Dr. Michael Göde v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2014-01; Natland Investment Group NV and Others v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL; Voltaic Network GmbH v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL; ICW Europe Investments Ltds. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL; Photovoltaik Knoph Betriebs-GmbH v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL; WA Investments-Europa Nova Ltd. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL; Mr. Jürgen Wirtgen v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL.
117. Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea B.V., Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-284/16, available online at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=199968&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=367328.
118. Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea B.V., Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-284/16, para 55. See also, X. Taton and G. Croisant, Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Post-Achmea: A Look at the Additional Remedies Offered by the ECHR and EU Law, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, May 19, 2018, available online at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/05/19/intra-eu-investment-arbitration-post-achmea-a-look-at-the-additional-remedies-offered-by-the-echr-and-eu-law/; S. Perry, ECJ Rules Against Intra-EU BITs, Global Arbitration Review, March 6, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1166355/ecj-rules-against-intra-eu-bits.
119. Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republiv) v Achmea B.V., Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-284/16, para 55.
120. Ibid., para 56; S. Perry, ECJ Rules Against Intra-EU BITs, Global Arbitration Review, March 6, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1166355/ecj-rules-against-intra-eu-bits.
121. S. Perry, ECJ Rules Against Intra-EU BITs, Global Arbitration Review, March 6, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1166355/ecj-rules-against-intra-eu-bits.
122. T. Jones, Romania Paves Way for Intra-EU BITs Termination, Global Arbitration Review, March 15, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1138200/romania-paves-way-for-intra-eu-bits-termination.
123. T. Jones, Hungary Seeks to Annul Intra-EU BIT Award, Global Arbitration Review, April 3, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1167437/hungary-seeks-to-annul-intra-eu-bit-award.
124. It will likely seek recourse in Polish courts. See L. Yong, Airbus withdraws treaty claim against Poland, Global Arbitration Review, May 22, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1169853/airbus-withdraws-treaty-claim-against-poland.
125. Signatories and Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Treaty, available online at: https://energycharter.org/who-we-are/members-observers/.
126. Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatif U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, May 16, 2018, para. 679.
127. The Republic of Croatia v. The Republic of Slovenia, PCA Case No. 2012-04, Final Award (June 29, 2017) (Croatia v. Slovenia).
128. PCA Press Release, Arbitration between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, June 29, 2017, available online at: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2173.
129. Croatia v. Slovenia, para. 1122.
137. L. Yong, Slovenia-Croatia border dispute could go to ECJ, Global Arbitration Review, January 15, 2018, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1152743/slovenia-croatia-border-dispute-could-go-to-ecj.
138. Dispute concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. The Russian Federation), PCA Case No. 2017-06, https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/149/. See also, S. Humor, Ukraine v. Russia: Passage through Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov,The Saker, April 5, 2018, available online at: http://thesaker.is/ukraine-v-russia-passage-through-kerch-strait-and-the-sea-of-azov/.
139. BBC, “Що відбувається в Азовському морі?”, April 21, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-44195775.
140. The Joint Statement by the President of Ukraine and the President of the Russian Federation on the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch, December 24, 2003, in Law of the Sea Bulletin of the United Nations No. 54 (2004), available online at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/doalos_publications/LOSBulletins/bulletinpdf/bulletin54e.pdf. See also, BBC, “Що відбувається в Азовському морі?”, dated April 21, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-44195775.
141. DW, “Чи досягне Україна покарання РФ за блокування доступу до морів?”, February 22, 2018, http://www.dw.com/uk/чи-досягне-україна-покарання-рф-за-блокування-доступу-до-морів/a-42696894.
142. A. Ross, Crimea Waters Case Gets Under Way in The Hague, Global Arbitration Review, May 22, 2017, available online at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1141915/crimea-waters-case-gets-under-way-in-the-hague.

References: V.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 21
 § 30
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.