UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
preliminary question, either party may, within 30 days, apply to the competent court for a determination, the tribunal being free to continue and make an award meanwhile, and the court’s decision being final. As to the principle itself, the Law on Domestic Arbitra - tion is to the same effect. Article 24 embodies both separability and kompetenz - kompetenz , empowering the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and treat - ing the arbitration agreement as separate from the underlying contract. What differs is the mechanism of review: the domestic regime does not replicate the ICA Law’s interlocutory 30-day route to court, so a jurisdictional objection in a domestic arbitration must be raised when the award is challenged or its enforce - ment resisted, the absence or invalidity of the arbitra - tion agreement being a ground on which a domestic award may be denied effect. Where the parties have submitted the dispute to a permanent arbitration court, its rules govern how a jurisdictional plea is first raised and decided, but the tribunal’s competence to rule on its own jurisdiction remains the point of depar - ture. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention A court may examine the tribunal’s jurisdiction only where the law permits: on an application to refer under Article 13 of the ICA Law; on review of a preliminary ruling upholding jurisdiction (Article 21 of the ICA Law, within 30 days); on setting aside under Article 50 of the ICA Law; and on recognition and enforcement under Article 52 of the ICA Law. Such applications are heard by the competent economic court under the EP Code. The courts are strictly non-interventionist. The eco - nomic courts increasingly defer to the tribunal’s own competence over jurisdiction, and while the practice is not yet wholly uniform, the trend is towards respect for the arbitral process rather than interference. Court review is available only where the tribunal has affirmed its jurisdiction; a negative ruling, by which the tribu - nal finds that it lacks jurisdiction, terminates the pro - ceedings and is not subject to the same interlocutory review. In a domestic arbitration, the tribunal has the same competence under Article 24 of the Law on Domes - tic Arbitration, but without the interlocutory 30-day
route to court; a jurisdictional objection is therefore addressed by the courts only on challenge to, or
enforcement of, the award. 5.3 Timing of Challenge
A party cannot go straight to court merely because a case has been filed or the tribunal constituted. Under the Article 21 of the ICA Law, a jurisdictional objec - tion must first be raised before the tribunal itself, and no later than the statement of defence. When, and whether, the question may then reach a court depends on how the tribunal disposes of it. If the tribunal rules on jurisdiction as a preliminary question and upholds it, either party may apply to the competent court, within 30 days of notice of that ruling, for the court to determine the matter – the earliest point at which jurisdiction can reach the court; the tribunal is not stayed and may continue, including to an award, while the application is pending, and the court’s decision is final. If the tribunal instead joins the objection to the merits and decides it in the final award, there is no earlier route: the objection can be pursued only after the award, by an application to set it aside under Article 50 of the ICA Law or defensively in resisting recognition and enforcement under Articles 51–52 of the ICA Law. Under the Law on Domestic Arbitration, the objection must likewise be raised before the tribunal first (Arti - cle 24), but with no interlocutory route to court: it can Uzbek law draws a sharp line between jurisdiction, which the courts review afresh, and questions of admissibility and the merits, which they do not. Jurisdiction is subject to de novo review: on an application under Article 21 of the ICA Law, or at the set-aside (Article 50 of the ICA Law) or enforcement (Articles 51–52 of the ICA Law) stage, the court itself determines the validity of the agreement and the scope of the tribunal’s mandate, rather than checking the tribunal’s ruling for reasonableness. Its role stops there – it does not reopen the tribunal’s findings of fact or law, there being no révision au fond . reach the courts only after the award. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility
1158 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook