UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independ - ence or impartiality, and the duty continues through - out. An arbitrator may be challenged on that ground, or for lacking a qualification agreed by the parties; a party may challenge an arbitrator it appointed only for reasons arising after the appointment. Article 18 of the ICA Law governs the procedure. Fail - ing agreement, the challenge must be made in writing to the tribunal within 15 days of learning of the tribu - nal’s composition or of the relevant circumstances; unless the arbitrator withdraws or the other party agrees, the tribunal decides it. If unsuccessful, the challenging party may apply to the competent court within 30 days; the court’s decision is final and, pend - ing that decision, the tribunal may continue and make an award. Article 19 adds that a mandate terminates where the arbitrator becomes unable in law or fact to act or fails to act without undue delay, with recourse to the court on the same final basis. The Law on Domestic Arbitration keeps the matter, as a rule, within the arbitration rather than the courts. It imposes a comparable disclosure and self-recusal obligation, and the grounds of challenge are in sub - stance the same – justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence, or failure to meet agreed qualifica - tions – reinforced by the eligibility conditions in Article 14. Where the dispute is before a permanent arbitra - tion court, that institution’s rules govern the challenge; the domestic regime does not give the state courts the supervisory role that Articles 18 and 19 of the ICA Law confer, so a challenge is resolved by self-recusal, party agreement or institutional rules. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements The independence and impartiality of arbitrators is the governing standard under both regimes, and it oper - ates as a continuing requirement rather than a one-off qualification at the point of appointment. Under the ICA Law, the standard is anchored in the disclosure duty in Article 17. The substantive test is one of justifiable doubts as to independence or impar - tiality, and a failure to meet this test is a ground of challenge under Article 18. The ICA Law does not itself prescribe a detailed conflict-of-interest taxonomy or a schedule of disqualifying relationships; it states the
standard and leaves its application to the tribunal and, on challenge, to the competent court. In prac - tice, the content of that standard is informed by the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, which counsel, tribunals and reviewing courts routinely rely upon as persuasive guidance, notwithstanding that they are non-binding soft law and have no formal status under Uzbek law. At the institutional level, the TIAC Rules give the standard practical effect: before appointment, a prospective arbitrator must sign a statement of acceptance, avail - ability, impartiality and independence, and is under a continuing duty to disclose to the parties, the institu - tion and the co-arbitrators any circumstances liable to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality. The Law on Domestic Arbitration adopts the same underlying standard but expresses it in more cate - gorical terms and enforces it primarily through self- recusal rather than curial review. Article 14 of the Law on Domestic Arbitration makes impartiality and the absence of interest conditions of eligibility to sit at all. That eligibility requirement is supported by a disclo - sure and withdrawal obligation of the same character as under the ICA Law – the arbitrator must disclose to the parties any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence and must withdraw where such circumstances emerge during the proceedings – so that an arbitrator who ceases to satisfy the impartiality and non-interest con - ditions cannot continue to act. The principle of kompetenz - kompetenz is expressly recognised under both regimes, operating in each case together with the principle of separability of the arbitration agreement. Under the ICA Law, Article 21 provides that the tribu - nal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including on any objection to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and may do so as a preliminary question or in the final award. Curial review is deferred and narrow: where the tribunal upholds jurisdiction as a 5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
1157 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook