UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
4. The Arbitral Tribunal 4.1 Limits on Selection
pute, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; the EP Code achieves the same before the domestic courts. As a rule, the Uzbek courts uphold and give effect to arbitration agreements, taking a consistently pro-arbi - tration approach to referral, consistent with their pro- enforcement stance towards awards. A party resisting referral or enforcement must bring its objection within the narrow statutory grounds, which the courts do not interpret expansively. 3.4 Validity Uzbek law recognises the principle of separability, codified for international arbitration in Article 21 of the ICA Law and reflected for domestic arbitration in Article 24 of the Law on Domestic Arbitration. An arbi - tration clause is treated as independent from the rest of the contract, so the invalidity of the main contract does not of itself render the clause invalid: it survives and continues to bind the parties, and a dispute over whether the contract is void remains one for arbitra - tion. Separability operates hand in hand with the principle of kompetenz - kompetenz , likewise embodied in Arti - cle 21 of the ICA Law and Article 24 of the Law on Domestic Arbitration, under which the arbitral tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction, includ - ing on any objection to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Read together, the two princi - ples allow the tribunal to determine disputes arising under the main contract without being deprived of jurisdiction by a challenge directed at that contract’s validity; a decision by the tribunal that the contract is null and void does not entail, as a matter of law, the invalidity of the arbitration clause. The clause fails only where the defect attaches to the arbitration agreement itself – for example, want of capacity or consent to arbitrate, non-compliance with the written form, or non-arbitrability of the subject matter. In the absence of such a ground, the clause remains valid despite the invalidity of the contract containing it.
Under Articles 15 and 16 of the ICA Law, the par - ties enjoy broad autonomy in constituting the tribunal: they may agree the number of arbitrators (three by default) and the appointment procedure. The ICA Law imposes no nationality or professional-qualification requirement, so foreign nationals may be appointed. Where the parties have agreed particular qualifica - tions, those bind the appointing authority. This liberal position stands in marked contrast to the domestic regime under the Law on Domestic Arbi - tration. Article 14 of the Law on Domestic Arbitra - tion confines eligibility to citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan who are at least 25 years of age, capable of ensuring an impartial resolution of the dispute, and free of any direct or indirect interest in its outcome. Foreign nationals may not sit as arbitrators in domes - tic proceedings. This is one of the principal structural distinctions between the two regimes, and a further reason why the ICA Law, rather than the domestic statute, governs disputes with a genuine cross-border element. These eligibility conditions have been tight - ened further by the Law on Amendment on Domestic Arbitration, which now additionally requires a domes - tic arbitrator to complete a training course under a special programme approved by the Ministry of Jus - tice and to maintain their professional qualifications on a continuing basis. The limits that do apply under the ICA Law are man - datory and cannot be displaced by agreement. Each arbitrator must be and remain independent and impar - tial and, under Article 17, must disclose any circum - stances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality, which may ground a challenge under Article 18. Party autonomy is also qualified by the equal-treatment requirement in Arti - cle 33, which precludes any appointment mechanism giving one side an unfair advantage – for example, allowing one party alone to nominate a sole arbitrator
or a majority of the tribunal. 4.2 Default Procedures
Where the parties’ chosen mechanism for constitut - ing the tribunal breaks down, the ICA Law supplies
1155 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook