| Abstract [eng] |
This master’s thesis reveals the issue of Public Policy as a Ground for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement or Setting Aside Foreign Arbitral Award. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of public policy. The paper focuses on the analysis of understanding of the notion of public policy in Lithuania. The thesis identifies possibilities of further development of the latter concept. Moreover, the work tackles the main questions related to public policy, such as: does the Court have an obligation or a right to apply national and/or international public policy? How does the EU law affect the concept of public policy? What is the scope of the Courts' control over compliance of the arbitral award with public policy? The first chapter of the thesis presents the dominant concept of international public policy that has the most prominent development perspectives. This part of the paper is focused on analytical evaluation of different attitudes towards public policy category. Along the same lines, critical analysis of the relationship between public policy and strictly imperative norms is provided. Furthermore, the mains aspects of International Law Association recommendations are reflected and prerequisites which determine different application of public policy are analysed. The next chapter displays the influence of the EU law and ECJ practice on the understanding of public policy in the EU Member states and non EU Member states. The case law of Lithuanian and other countries is analysed. Specifically, cases where it was deviated from the established by ECJ concept of arbitrability under EU law are assessed. In the third chapter reference is made to the scope of the Courts' control over compliance of the arbitral award with public policy. Special attention is given to the courts’ precedents that contribute to the development of the principle favour arbitrandum and in practice implement the pro-arbitration tendency established by the New York Convention. Finally the chapter provides an overview of the court practice that is analysed by identifying arguable aspects of application of public policy, contradictions and discrepancies among different states and scholars’ views. A special emphasis is placed on the solutions for the aforementioned problems. |
