| Abstract | Činjenica što Zakon o arbitraži od dana usvajanja u Saboru, odnosno već više od 20 godina,
nije doživio niti jednu izmjenu ili dopunu, ukazivala bi prvo na zaključak da se radi o
"idealnom" zakonu koji sadrži sve one elemente i načela arbitražnog postupka koja u potpunosti
odgovaraju težnjama stranaka za efikasnim rješavanjem sporova i težnji zakonodavca da ga u
potpunosti uskladi s modernim arbitražnim zakonodavstvima. S druge strane, njegova
nepromijenjenost toliki niz godina može ukazati i na činjenicu da se mali broj pravnih
znanstvenika i stručnjaka na području Republike Hrvatske uopće bavi arbitražnom
"problematikom", pa stoga potreba za izmjenama ili dopunama Zakona o arbitraži nije u fokusu
zakodavca. Oba zaključka su pred autora stavila zadatak da pokuša utvrditi jesu li zaista, nakon
toliko godina od dana donošenja Zakona o arbitraži, potrebne njegove izmjene, odnosno može
li hrvatski Zakon o arbitraži postati još efikasniji instrument zaštite prava i interesa stranaka,
prvenstveno prava na pošteno suđenje i prava na djelotvorno pravno sredstvo. Zadatak je autora
i utvrditi može li određenim izmjenama Zakona o arbitraži i drugih mjerodavnih zakona,
arbitražni sud postati šire prihvaćen među strankama kao mjesto za rješavanje njihovih sporova,
jer je činjenica da je arbitražno rješavanje sporova rijetkost u odnosu na rješavanje sporova pred
državnim sudom. U tom cilju su analizirana komparativna arbitražna zakonodavstva Austrije,
Švicarske i Engleske, analizirani su domaći i međunarodni pravni izvori kojima je uređena
arbitraža, kao i brojne sudske odluke donesene u postupcima za pobijanje pravorijeka.
Namjerno koristim riječ "pobijanje" pravorijeka, jer riječ "poništaj" nije zajednička arbitražnim
zakonodavstvima koja su obrađena za potrebe ovog doktorskog rada.
Prikazom i analizom rada sudova u postupcima povodom zahtjeva za pobijanje pravorijeka,
zatim u postupcima povodom izjavljenih pravnih sredstava protiv odluka kojima je odlučeno o
zahtjevima za pobijanje pravorijeka kao i analizom postupanja stranaka u tim postupcima, cilj
je ovim radom prikazati i koliko je zaista efikasan učinak pravomoćnosti arbitražnog
pravorijeka. Stoga su ovim doktorskim radom i predložene de lege ferenda određene izmjene
Zakona o arbitraži. Cilj je ovog rada i ukazati strankama arbitražnog postupka na nužnost
poduzimanja određenih radnji već u arbitražnom postupku jer kasnije isticanja prigovora na
određene nepravilnosti nastale tijekom arbitražnog postupka više ne može utjecati na pravilnost
donesenog pravorijeka.
Ovim doktorskim radom pokušava se dati i odgovor koliko procesni zakoni mogu utjecati na
efikasnost arbitražnog postupka i arbitražnog pravorijeka. Prije svega se misli na Zakon o
parničnom postupku koji je petnaest puta izmijenjen i dopunjen od dana donošenja Zakona o
arbitraži. Obzirom da se postupak za poništaj pravorijeka vodi prema pravilima redovne
parnice, dakle u skladu s odredbama Zakona o parničnom postupku, analizira se i koliko
učestale izmjene toga zakona utječu na efikasnost postupka za poništaj pravorijeka i na prava i
obveze stranaka u tim postupcima. Analizira se i koliko je istražno načelo prisutno u postupcima
za poništaj pravorijeka, način postupanja sudova te moguće odluke sudova u tim postupcima.
Ovim će se doktorskim radom dati i odgovor na pitanje je li nužna još jedna izmjena procesnog
zakonodavstva kako u postupcima za poništaj pravorijeka stranke ne bi zlouporabom svojih
prava odgodile provedbu učinka pravomoćnosti pravorijeka.
Analiza arbitražnih i parničnih procesnih odredbi bitnih za izradu teme ovog doktorskog rada,
dovela je i do zaključka da ne postoje prepreke za osnivanjem novih arbitražnih ustanova koje
nesmetano mogu organizirati provođenje arbitražnih postupaka. Koliko je opravdano to
očekivati, ovisi i u znantoj mjeri o širenju arbitrabilnosti i na one sporove za koje je, za sada,
sudska praksa ukazala da se mogu rješavati samo pred državnim sudovima. Širenje
arbitrabilnosti na druge vrste sporova ovisi jedino i isključivo o volji zakonodavca, pa se već
samo iz toga razloga, nadamo prvim izmjenama Zakona o arbitraži i novim izmjenama drugih
zakona koje bi podržale i arbitražno rješavanje sporova proizlašlih iz odnosa koji su uređeni
tim zakonima. Za ukazati je i na mišljenje da bi širenje "prisilnih arbitraža" znatno doprinjelo
rasterećenju državnih sudova, ali za to je osim zakonodavnih izmjena, nužno prije svega i
sudsko razumjevanje značenja toga pojma i njegove dozvoljenosti. |
| Abstract (english) | The fact that the Arbitration Act, since its adoption in the Parliament more than 20 years ago,
has not undergone a single change or amendment would firstly point to the conclusion that it is
an "ideal" Act which contains all those elements and principles of the arbitration procedure
which fully correspond to aspirations of the parties for efficient resolution of disputes and to
the aspirations of the legislator to fully harmonize it with modern arbitration legislation. On the
other hand, its unchanged nature for so many years may also indicate the fact that a small
number of legal scholars and experts in the Republic of Croatia deals with arbitration
"problems" at all, and therefore the need for changes or amendments to the Arbitration Act is
not in the focus of the legislator. Both conclusions set the author with the task of trying to
determine whether, after so many years since the adoption of the Arbitration Act, its changes
are necessary, or whether the Croatian Arbitration Act can become an even more effective
instrument for protecting the rights and interests of the parties, primarily the right to a fair trial
and the right to an effective legal remedy. Task of the author is also to determine whether certain
amendments to the Arbitration Act and other relevant laws can make the arbitration court more
widely accepted among the parties as a place for resolving their disputes, since the fact is that
arbitral dispute resolution is a rarity compared to the resolution of disputes before a regular
court. To this end, the comparative arbitration legislation of Austria, Switzerland and England,
the domestic and international legal sources regulating arbitration as well as numerous court
decisions made in proceedings for the rebuttal of judgments were analysed. I intentionally use
the word "contest" of the award since the word "setting aside" is not common to the arbitration
legislature that have been dealt with for the purposes of this doctoral thesis.
By presenting and analysing the work of the courts in proceedings following requests for
contesting of awards, in proceedings regarding submitted legal remedies against decisions on
requests for contesting of awards, as well as by analysing the actions of the parties in these
proceedings, the aim of this doctoral thesis is to demonstrate how effective really is the valid
arbitral award. Therefore, this doctoral thesis proposes de lege ferenda certain changes to the
Arbitration Act. The aim of this doctoral is to point out to the parties to the arbitration procedure
the necessity of undertaking certain actions already in the arbitration procedure, since later
indication of objections to certain irregularities occurred during the arbitration procedure can
no longer affect the regularity of the reached award.
This doctoral thesis tries to provide a response to what extent procedural regulations can affect
the efficiency of the arbitration procedure and the arbitration award. Firstly, reference is made
to the Civil Procedure Act, which has been amended and supplemented fifteen times since the
adoption of the Arbitration Act. Given that the procedure for the setting aside of an award is
conducted according to the rules of court litigation, i.e. in accordance with the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Act, it is analysed in what way often changes to Civil Procedure Act affect the
efficiency of the procedure for setting aside of the award and the rights and obligations of the
parties in those procedures. It is also analysed to what extent the investigative principle is
present in the procedures for the setting aside of an award, the way the courts act and the
possible decisions of the courts in these procedures. This doctoral thesis will also present an
answer to the question of whether another amendment to the procedural legislation is necessary
so that in procedures for the setting aside of awards, the parties would not, by abusing their
rights, delay the execution of the final awards.
The analysis of arbitration and litigation procedural provisions essential for the preparation of
the theme of this doctoral thesis, led to the conclusion that there are no obstacles to the
establishment of new arbitration institutions that can organize the conduct of arbitration
proceedings without obstruction. How justified it is to expect the said, depends to a certain
extent on the expansion of arbitrability and on those disputes for which, for the time being,
judicial practice has indicated that can only be resolved before regular courts. The expansion of
arbitrability to other types of disputes depends solely and exclusively on the will of the
legislator, so for this reason alone, we hope for the first amendments to the Arbitration Act and
for new amendments to other laws that would support the arbitration settlement of disputes
arising from relationships regulated by those laws. It is also worth pointing out to the opinion
that the expansion of "forced arbitrations" would significantly contribute to the relief of regular
courts, but for this, in addition to legislative changes, it is necessary, first of all, a judicial
understanding of the meaning of this term and its permissibility. |
