Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками застереження при врегулюванні спорів, а саме:

• 1. Dispute resolution clause definition. Визначення застереження про врегулювання спорів.
• 2. Types of dispute resolution clauses: exclusive, non-exclusive and unilateral jurisdiction clauses. Типи застережень про врегулювання спорів: ексклюзивна, неексклюзивна та одностороння юрисдикція.
• 3. Case review: how do courts interpret exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Огляд справ: як суди тлумачать положення про ексклюзивну та неексклюзивну юрисдикцію.
• 4. Arbitration as an alternative mean in dispute resolution (clause drafting and important cases review). Арбітраж як альтернативний спосіб вирішення спорів (складання арбітражного застереження та огляд важливих справ).

У рамках характеристики застережень при врегулюванні спорів акцентовано на наступному:

1. Disputeresolutionclausedefinition. Визначення застереження про врегулювання спорів

Dispute resolution clause – а clause setting out the parties’ agreement to submit any disputes arising out of оr in connection with an agreement to a particular national court.

Regulations:

1. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).
2. Convention on choise of court agreements, done at The Hague, on 30 June 2005, by the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

REGULATION (EU) NO 1215/2012:

Scope: civil and commercial matters.

It shall not extend, in particular,

• To revenue, customs ог administrative matters or
• to the liability of the State for acts апа omissions in the exercise of State authority.

The Regulation provides that а judgment given in а Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required.

Shall not apply to:

• the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship or out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage;
• bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings;
• social security;
• arbitration;
• maintenance obligations arising from а family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity;
• wills апа succession, including maintenance obligations arising by reason of death.

In relation to contracts:

Prorogation of jurisdiction:

If the parties, regardless of their domicile, have agreed that а court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction, unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State.

Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

The agreement shall be either:

(а) in writing ог evidenced in writing;

(b) in form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or

(c)in international trade ог commerce, in а form which accords with а usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.

Case review:

• Справа № 924/124/23

Позов про стягнення 13 910,63 євро (iз урахуванням заяви про зменшення позовних вимог) у зв’язку із неналежним виконанням умов контракту купівлі продажу від 06.09.2022 N PF0609/22;

«Уci спори, що пов’язані із цим контрактом або такі, що виникають в процесі виконання умов цього контракту, вирішуються шляхом переговорів між представниками сторін. Якщо спір неможливо вирішити шляхом переговорів, він вирішується в українському господарському суді. Мова судочинства – українська» (пункт 11.1).

• Справа № 924/124/23

Господарський суд Хмельницької області ухвалою від 10.04.2024 закрив провадження. Мотив: «сторонами у контракті від 06.09.2022 не узгоджено та не визначено компетентний суд, тобто якому саме господарському суду в Україні підсудний спір, тоді як місце виконання контракту знаходиться у Республіці Польща; за відсутності майна відповідача на території України відсутні будь-які підстави для визначення територіальної юрисдикції (підсудності) цього спору Господарському суду Хмельницької області».

• Справа № 924/124/23

Постанова від 04.09.2024 № 924/124/23 Верховний Суд. Касаційний господарський суд:

«4.22. Конвенцією про угоди про вибір суду, яка ратифікована Законом України від 15.06.2021 N 1544-IX “Про ратифікацію Конвенції про угоди про вибір суду” та набрала чинності для України 01.08.2023 визначено, що угода про вибір суду, яка визначає суди однієї Договірної Держави або один чи декілька визначених судів однієї Договірної Держави, вважається виключною, якщо сторони прямо не передбачили інше (пункт “b” статті 3).

Отже, в разі, якщо в контракті (договорі) сторони не конкретизували назву (область, територію) суду, в якому має вирішуватися спір, проте визначили суди конкретної Договірної Держави (у нашому випадку “український господарський суд”), то наведене, відповідно до казаної норми міжнародного права, є виключною угодою про вибір сторонами українських судів і сторони прямо іншого не передбачили».

2. Types of dispute resolution clauses: exclusive, non-exclusive and unilateral jurisdiction clauses. Типи застережень про врегулювання спорів: ексклюзивна, неексклюзивна та одностороння юрисдикція

3 key types:

1. Exclusive jurisdiction clause means that an action can be commenced only in the chosen forum;
2. Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause provides some flexibility to the parties as it authorizes more than one jurisdiction to hear the action;
3. Unilateral оr “one-sided” jurisdiction clause – rare type.

1. Exclusive jurisdiction clause:

The parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court. This means that the parties know exactly where the dispute will be brought and what national procedural rules will apply in the event that a dispute arises.

Example: Extract from the Contract

“8.3 Each Party to this Contract irrevocably agrees that the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear, settle and/or determine any dispute, controversy or claim (including any non-contractual dispute, controversy or claim) arising out of or in connection with this Contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity, formation or termination. For these purposes, each Party irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the England and Wales courts”.

2. Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause:

Here the parties generally agree that а dispute may be resolved п the jurisdiction stated in the clause (e.g. the Courts of England & Wales), but without prejudice to the right of one or other of the parties to refer the dispute to the courts of another jurisdiction.

The advantage of this is that it achieves flexibility if, on reflection, there is a more appropriate jurisdiction in which to resolve the dispute.

Non- exclusive forum clause “permissive clause”:

A “mandatory” clause contains language of exclusivity. A “permissive” clause lacks such language.

When a clause states that a particular court shall “have jurisdiction” over а suit, for example, the parties have not waived their right tо sue elsewhere.

3. Unilateral or “one-sided” jurisdiction clause:

Often appearing in finance agreements, such a clause allows one party (the borrower) to initiate proceedings in one particular court, whilst the other party (the lender) may (under the most common form of wording) choose to bring proceedings in “any court of competent jurisdiction” and, commonly in practice, where the borrower’s assets аге located.

3. Case review: how do courts interpret exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Огляд справ: як суди тлумачать положення про ексклюзивну та неексклюзивну юрисдикцію

1. Exclusive jurisdiction clause:

АеrСар Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company & Ors v PJSC Insurance Company Universalna & Ors (Re Ukrainian Aircraft Operator Policy Claims (Jurisdiction Applications)) [2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm) (06 June 2024):

BACKGROUND:

PJSC Insurance Company Universalna challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, relying on exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Ukraine in the reinsurance contracts.

AerCap argued that the exclusive jurisdiction clauses were not binding and did not apply to its claims, аs they had not been parties to the reinsurance contracts. It also argued that, even if the clauses were binding and enforceable, the war in Ukraine provided strong reasons for their claims being heard in England.

Clause 9.3 of the insurance contract in the Overstar Claim provides that:

“Disputes, arising between the Parties, shall be resolved by negotiation, and if not resolved — in accordance with the current laws. This Insurance Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine and each Party agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Ukraine in the event of a dispute arising hereunder”.

1. This judgment concerns challenges to the jurisdiction of the English court to hear claims under Operator Policies in respect of aircraft which have remained in Ukraine following the Russian Federation’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

2. The defendants represented оп these applications (“the Defendants”) apply to set aside the relevant claim forms, alternatively for a stay of the proceedings, on the basis that the Claimants’ claims have been issued in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses (“EJCs”) in favour of the courts of Ukraine.

3. The English court will stay proceedings brought in England in breach of аn EJC in favour of аn overseas court, unless the claimant can satisfy the court that “strong reasons” exist to allow them to continue (Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749 §§ 24-25).

4. There weren’t strong reasons to decline to give effect to the EJCs by staying these claims in favour of proceedings in the courts of Ukraine.

2. Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause:

Savanta v. Hilditch, 2022 ONSC 1384 (CanLll):

Clause 10.3 of the 5РА provides as follows:

If any controversy, action, proceeding ог dispute (а “Dispute”) arises with respect to this Agreement, the Ancillary Agreements (to the extent no choice of law is specified therein) or any transactions contemplated by this Agreement, the Dispute must be brought in any state or federal court of competent jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and each Party irrevocably submits and agrees to attorn to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of such court.

1. There is а difference however between “exclusive” and “non-exclusive” clauses.
2. Where the former confers sole jurisdiction on the named forum.
3. While the latter simply requires а party to attorn to the named jurisdiction if аn action is commenced in that jurisdiction.

3. Unilateral or “one-sided” jurisdiction clause:

Lara Basem Musa Khoury v Mashreq Bank PSC [2022] DIFC CA 007 Dubai International Financial Centre:

“22 This Agreement shall be governed by, and be construed in accordance with, the laws of the Dubai International Financial Centre (‘DIFC’). The Client agrees, for the benefit of the Bank, that any legal action or proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement against it or any of its assets may be brought in the relevant courts of the DIFC.

22.2 The Client irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the jurisdiction of the relevant courts of the DIFC. The submission to such Jurisdiction shall not (and shall not be construed so as to) limit the right of the Bank to take proceedings against the Client in the courts of any other competent jurisdiction nor shall the taking of proceedings in any one or more jurisdictions preclude the taking of proceedings in any other jurisdiction, whether concurrently or not.”

4. Arbitration as an alternative mean in dispute resolution (clause drafting and important cases review). Арбітраж як альтернативний спосіб вирішення спорів (складання арбітражного застереження та огляд важливих справ)

Arbitration:

• a procedure in which a dispute is submitted (by agreement between the parties) to а tribunal (usually consisting of оnе оr three arbitrators who are selected by the parties) which makes a binding decision on the dispute;
• private form of dispute resolution procedure instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of a national court.

Some key factors to be considered drafting an arbitration clause:

1. Choice of rules:

Each arbitral institution has its own set of rules that supplement the terms included in an arbitration clause. These rules will typically govern how the Tribunal is appointed, confidentiality and the provisions for interim — апа emergency relief. Leading arbitral institutions include the ICC, LCIA, DIAC, DIFC-LCIA, SIAC etc. Ad Hoc.Institutional.

2. Number of arbitrators:

Will depend on the nature, value and complexity of the dispute. The number of arbitrators п most cases is one or three. A sole arbitrator: jointly by both parties, or he/she may be appointed by а third party (e.g. the relevant institution) if the parties cannot agree.

Alternatively, if there are to be three arbitrators, each party nominates аn arbitrator аnd the third (neutral) arbitrator and chairperson will be appointed by the relevant institution.

3. Language:

The parties should specify the working language of the arbitration. Care should therefore be given to selecting arbitrators who are fluent (to a legal standard) in the chosen language.” and, commonly in practice, where the borrower’s assets are located.

The parties should specify the language of documents in the arbitration.

4. Seat of arbitration:

The seat or “legal place” of the arbitration gives the award its “nationality” аnd determines the legal framework within which the arbitration takes place.

5. Governing law:

The substantive law of the agreement can be: any law and does not need to bear a relation to the seat of the arbitration.

For example, it is common for parties to submit to the jurisdiction of the DIFC-LCIA with the arbitration being seated in the DIFC but subject to English law.

6. Online procedure:

Parties shall agreе to settle their dispute in arbitration which would be held through medium of technology (i.e. internet).

Першоджерело - https://tinyurl.com/3pkrhbfh