UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
Neither regime fixes a statutory deadline for render - ing the award. Any time limit derives instead from the institutional rules the parties have adopted or from their agreement with the tribunal. 10.2 Types of Remedies Uzbek law does not enumerate or cap the remedies a tribunal may grant. Under Article 44 of the ICA Law, the tribunal decides according to the law chosen by the parties, the contract and trade usages, and may award any remedy available under that law – dam - ages, contractually stipulated sums, declaratory relief, rectification, specific performance or injunctive relief. The real constraint operates at enforcement: a rem - edy is not precluded merely because it is unknown to Uzbek law, but recognition and enforcement may be refused under Article 52 of the ICA Law on public- policy grounds, which are narrowly construed. A rem - edy alien to fundamental principles, such as punitive or exemplary damages, is the likeliest candidate for such an objection. Under the Law on Domestic Arbitration, the position is tighter, because a domestic tribunal resolves the dispute under Uzbek substantive law: its remedies are in practice confined to those Uzbek law recognises, so remedies such as punitive damages fall away at the merits stage rather than only at enforcement. 10.3 Recovering Interest and Legal Costs Interest is not regulated in detail by either regime, and cost allocation is left to the rules and the tribunal only under the international regime; the domestic regime prescribes it by statute. On costs, the ICA Law does not lay down a costs regime, so their allocation is governed by the institu - tional rules the parties have adopted or by their agree - ment, which typically leave the tribunal a broad dis - cretion to apportion the costs of the arbitration – the arbitrators’ fees, administrative charges and the par - ties’ legal costs – in light of the outcome and the par - ties’ conduct. In practice, tribunals seated in Uzbeki - stan follow the “costs follow the event” approach: the tribunal ordinarily awards the successful party its reasonable costs, adjusted for the parties’ conduct, rather than dividing costs equally.
On interest, a party may recover interest where the applicable substantive law and the parties’ agreement so allow; where Uzbek law governs, statutory interest on monetary obligations provides the basis, and the tribunal fixes the rate and period accordingly. Under the Law on Domestic Arbitration, however, costs allocation is largely prescribed by statute rather than left to the tribunal’s discretion. Article 22 of the Law on Domestic Arbitration directs the arbitration court to allocate the costs of the proceedings first in accordance with the parties’ agreement and, failing such agreement, in proportion to the claims granted and rejected. The successful party’s representative (legal) fees and its other costs of the proceedings may be shifted onto the other party only where reim - bursement was requested during the proceedings and granted by the tribunal, with the allocation set out in the award or ruling. Interest, by contrast, is not addressed by the Law on Domestic Arbitration and is recovered under Uzbek substantive law where the applicable law and the parties’ agreement so allow. An award is not open to appeal on its merits. The only recourse against an award seated in Uzbekistan is an application to set it aside, heard by the economic court, which examines the statutory grounds alone and does not review the substance of the dispute. Under Article 50 of the ICA Law those grounds are exhaustive and track the international standard: inca - pacity of a party or invalidity of the agreement; want of proper notice or inability to present one’s case; excess of mandate; improper composition or procedure; non- arbitrability under Uzbek law; and conflict with pub - lic policy. The application must be made within three months of receipt of the award and is given effect through the EP Code; the court may suspend pro - ceedings to let the tribunal cure the defect. The same grounds – invalid agreement, excess of mandate, non- arbitrability, public policy – also justify refusing recog - nition and enforcement under Article 52. 11. Review of an Award 11.1 Grounds for Appeal
1163 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook