UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention
The Law on Domestic Arbitration follows a parallel structure for domestic awards, with a closely com - parable and exhaustive list of setting-aside grounds – invalidity of the arbitration agreement, excess of scope, improper composition or procedure, want of proper notice, non-arbitrability, and breach of the rules on the law applicable to the substance of the dispute under Article 10 of that Law – a ground with no coun - terpart in Article 50 of the ICA Law, and one that sits uneasily beside the prohibition on reviewing the merits in the same article. Unlike the international regime, the Law on Domestic Arbitration contains no separate public-policy ground – neither for setting aside nor for refusing enforcement. 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal Parties cannot contract out of, or add to, the statutory grounds of challenge. The setting-aside grounds in Article 50 of the ICA Law are mandatory: they protect due process and the public interest and cannot be waived, narrowed or enlarged by agreement, nor can a right to appeal on the merits be created by contract. The parties may adjust procedural entitlements that do not touch these guarantees – for example, agree - ing under Article 47 that the award need not state reasons, or an abbreviated procedure – provided each retains a reasonable opportunity to present its case. Any agreement excluding review on due-process or public-policy grounds is ineffective. The Law on Domestic Arbitration is to the same effect for domestic awards: its setting-aside grounds are likewise mandatory and exhaustive, cannot be expanded or excluded by agreement, and confer no merits appeal, while the parties retain the same lim - ited freedom to shape procedural details that do not compromise the fundamental guarantees. 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review Uzbek law provides no review of an award on its mer - its. The court does not revisit the tribunal’s findings of fact or law; it verifies only whether a statutory ground for setting aside or refusing enforcement is made out. The standard as to substance is thus near-total defer - ence, while the enumerated procedural and jurisdic - tional grounds are examined independently.
Uzbekistan is a party to the New York Convention, having acceded on 7 February 1996 (in force from 7 May 1996) without the reciprocity or “commercial” reservations under Article I(3), so it applies without those limitations. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure Recognition and enforcement of a foreign award pro - ceeds under the New York Convention and the EP Code, principally Chapter 33 (Articles 248–256). The creditor applies to the competent economic court at the debtor’s residence or registration (Article 249); where the debtor is a natural person acting non-com - mercially, the Civil Procedure Code applies similarly. The application is determined within six months and, if granted, yields a writ of execution. The applicant must produce the authenticated award and arbitration agreement, or certified copies (Article IV of the New York Convention), with a certified Uzbek translation. There is no review of the merits; enforcement may be refused only on the exhaustive grounds in Article 256 of the EP Code, which reproduce Article V of the Convention. An award annulled at the seat engages the ground in Article 256 of the EP Code (Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention), and the courts would ordinar - ily decline to enforce it. Where set-aside proceed - ings are pending at the seat, the enforcing court may, under Article VI of the New York Convention, adjourn enforcement pending their outcome and order the debtor to provide security; the suspension is discre - tionary, not automatic. As to sovereign immunity, Uzbek law lays down no comprehensive statutory regime of immunity from execution. A plea by a state or state entity is assessed along restrictive lines: a state that has agreed to arbi - trate a commercial matter is generally taken to have submitted, so immunity from jurisdiction does not bar recognition, though immunity from execution may still be invoked over particular categories of protected state property.
1164 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook