Uporaba pravila iura novit curia v arbitražnem postopku

Cesar, Karmen (author), Galič, Aleš (mentor)

Predmetno magistrsko diplomsko delo obravnava vprašanje uporabe pravila iura novit curia v arbitražnem postopku. Iura novit curia je pravilo, ki ga poznamo iz pravdnega postopka, bolj pa je udomačeno v pravnih redih kontinentalne pravne tradicije. Pravdni in arbitražni postopek se bistveno razlikujeta predvsem v stopnji avtonomije, ki jo uživata stranki. Ker jo v arbitražnem postopku uživata bistveno več, bi to lahko imelo velik vpliv na možnost uporabe pravila iura novit curia. Jedro tega pravila je namreč, da sodišču omogoča ugotavljanje in uporabo prava neodvisno od pravnih argumentov strank, s čimer posega v njuno avtonomijo. V začetku magistrske diplomske naloge se sprašujem, ali je uporaba tega pravila v arbitražnem postopku sploh možna – ali pravna narava arbitražnega postopka in predpisi, ki arbitražni postopek urejajo, to sploh omogočajo. Ker predpisi, ki urejajo arbitražni postopek, uporabi pravila iura novit curia puščajo prosto pot, vendar pri tem ne dajejo nobenih konkretnih smernic, uživa arbiter široko diskrecijsko pravico. Pravilo iura novit curia temelji na domnevi, da sodišče pravo pozna. V postopku mednarodne arbitraže, kjer lahko pride do stika najrazličnejših jurisdikcij, pa ni realistično pričakovati, da bo arbiter nujno poznal pravo, ki sta ga stranki izbrali. Vendar to, da prava ne pozna, samo po sebi ni ovira, da ga ne bi mogel vseeno uporabiti neodvisno od strankinih pravnih argumentov, kot mu to veleva pravilo iura novit curia. V takem primeru je potreben dodaten korak, in sicer ugotavljanje vsebine prava. Tudi k temu so pristopi najrazličnejši. Breme dokazovanja je lahko v celoti na strankah postopka, kot bi šlo za dejstva, ali pa je to dolžnost arbitra, ki naj pravo ugotovi na lastno pobudo. V nadaljevanju je obravnavano vprašanje, ali je morda uporaba pravila iura novit curia celo obvezna, in ali morata imeti stranki možnost, da se o tem izrečeta. Vsekakor mora arbiter pri uporabi pravila iura novit curia ostati znotraj meja, ki so v razlogih za razveljavitev oz. zavrnitev priznanja in izvršitve arbitražne odločbe. Cilj je navsezadnje, da je o sporu med strankama odločeno z veljavno in izvršljivo arbitražno odločbo. Predvsem mora biti arbiter pozoren na to, da spoštuje pravico strank do izjave, in da ne izda odločbe presenečenja. Prav tako pa mora upoštevati meje pooblastil, ki jih uživa ter paziti na spoštovanje javnega reda.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: iura novit curia, arbitražni postopek, avtonomija strank, arbitražni sporazum, diskrecijska pravica, pravica do izjave
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2019
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-111120
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16980817
• Publication date in RUL: 25.09.2019

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: The use of iura novit curia principle in arbitration procedure

Abstract

The thesis deals with the question of using the iura novit curia principle in arbitration. We are familiar with the iura novit curia as a principle used in litigation, more often in civil law legal systems. One of the main differences between arbitration and litigation is the level of autonomy enjoyed by the parties. The high level of autonomy enjoyed by the parties to arbitration could have a significant effect on the ability to use the iura novit curia principle. The core of this principle is the possibility of the court to ascertain and apply the law not depending on the parties’ pleadings, by which the autonomy of the parties is restricted. The opening question of the thesis is whether the use of iura novit curia is even possible – is this supported by the legal character of arbitration or the rules that govern the arbitration procedure. Rules governing the arbitration procedure leave a large leeway for the use of the principle, with no specific guidelines, which leaves the arbitrator with a wide discretionary power. Iura novit curia principle is based on the assumption that the court knows the law. In the case of international arbitration where many different jurisdictions come to play, the expectation that the arbitrator will know the law chosen by the parties is unrealistic. Not knowing the law is by itself not an obstacle for the use of the iura novit curia principle. The arbitrator could still use the law as it deemed appropriate and not depend on the parties’ legal arguments. In this case, an additional step has to be made – ascertaining the contents of the law. There are many different approaches to this step, ranging from those that put the burden of proving the law as it were a fact, on the parties, to those that make it an arbitrators’ duty to ascertain the law independently. Later the thesis dives into the question whether an arbitral tribunal has an obligation to use the iura novit curia principle and whether the parties have to be given an opportunity to comment on the use of the principle. The arbitral tribunal must use the iura novit curia principle per boundary lines imposed by reasons to set aside an award or deny its recognition and enforcement. The objective of an arbitration is after all a valid and enforceable award. In this regard, the arbitrator must especially respect the parties’ right to be heard and not render a surprise award. The arbitrator must also keep in mind the scope of his mandate, furthermore, he must be attentive to respecting public order.

• Keywords: iura novit curia, arbitration procedure, party autonomy, arbitration agreement, discretionary power, right to be heard