• Title/Summary/Keyword: Decision of Enforcement

Search Result 90, Processing Time 0.02 seconds

The Procedure for Decision of Enforcement by the Arbitration Award and Its Problems (중재판정에 의한 집행판결의 절차와 그 문제점)

  • Kim Bong-Suk
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.13 no.1
    • /
    • pp.169-205
    • /
    • 2003
  • Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

  • PDF

Problems on the Arbitral Awards Enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act (2016년 개정 중재법의 중재판정 집행에 관한 문제점)

  • Yoon, Jin-Ki
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.26 no.4
    • /
    • pp.3-41
    • /
    • 2016
  • This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

Refusing Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and Passive Remedy : Focused on PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV and others [2013] SGCA 57 (중재판정의 집행거부와 소극적 구제 - 싱가포르의 PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV and others [2013] SGCA 57 판결의 분석 -)

  • Sur, Ji-Min
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.28 no.4
    • /
    • pp.131-152
    • /
    • 2018
  • On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.

An Economic Analysis of the Enforcement of illegal Fishing in Traditional Fisheries Management (전통적 어업관리의 불법어업 감시·감독에 대한 경제학적 분석)

  • LEE, Sang-Go
    • Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
    • /
    • v.14 no.1
    • /
    • pp.57-73
    • /
    • 2002
  • Illegal fishing is often cited as a principal cause of the failure of fisheries management, expecially fishing efforts regulations in traditional fisheries management. Usually, illegal fishing problems are perceived to be equivalent to inadequate enforcement, and policy prescription then follow to strengthen enforcement programs. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the illegal fishing behavior relatively recent emphasis on fishing efforts regulations in traditional fisheries management. The analysis focuses on measuring, explaining and developing the effectiveness way of enforcement strategies responding to imperfectly managed fishing efforts regulations through illegal fishing behavior and avoid enforcement fishing efforts measures. A model of fishermen fishing behavior and profit-maximizing decision making is analyzed to determine optimal fishing at individual fisherman level in response to fishing efforts regulation. The results of economic analysis of the enforcement of illegal fishing in traditional fisheries management results are as follows: First, illegal fishing will occur only if enforcement effort is not so high as to remove the incentive to do so, and if the effectiveness of avoidance is not too great, nor its cost too low. Second, avoidance effort will occur at a level jointly proportional to the extent of illegal activity and of enforcement; for given levels of the latter, the desired avoidance effort increase with its effectiveness and decrease with its cost Third, to improve the effectiveness of enforcement, understanding avoidance behavior appears to be crucial to any efforts. Forth, enforcement and fishermen behavior interact depends strongly on characteristics of avoidance, specifically its cost and effectiveness. When avoidance is neither too cheap nor too effective, the interaction is regular. Fifth, in this case, at low levels of enforcement, fishers respond to increases in enforcement by increasing avoidance, but at higher enforcement levels, it becomes uneconomical to continue to do so, and avoidance decreases with enforcement. Sixth, illegal fishing activity decreases steadily with enforcement, so the fishery manager is able, in theory, to reduce illegal fishing toward zero by increasing enforcement. If, however, avoidance is very inexpensive and/or very efficient/ then the optimal level of avoidance will increase indefinitely with increasing enforcement. Finally, less fishery enforcement is required if fishermen have less incentive to overfish, and fishermen have less incentive to avoid fishery enforcement measures.

A Study on the Stay of Enforcement of ICSID Arbitral Awards (ICSID 중재판정의 '집행정지'에 관한 고찰)

  • KIM, Yong-Il
    • THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
    • /
    • v.68
    • /
    • pp.65-87
    • /
    • 2015
  • This article examines the Stay of Enforcement of ICSID Arbitration Award. The effect of the stay is that the award is not subject to enforcement proceedings under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention pending the outcome of the annulment application. The annulment committee must decide the stay, unless the applicant sought the stay with the request for annulment, in which case the ICSID Secretary -General must grant it automatically. This automatic stay -which can only relate to the entire award-remains in force until the committee is constituted and issues a decision on the request for stay. ICSID committees have taken different positions on whether a stay of enforcement is exceptional or not. Some committees have held that because the ICSID Convention explicitly recognizes that the rights of the award creditor could be subject to a stay, stays are not exceptional. ICSID practice shows that most committees have rejected the proposition that the merits and prospects of the application for annulment should influence the committee's decision whether to grant a stay. In addition, ICSID practice regarding the specific circumstances that will justify a stay of enforcement is unclear, and committees have focused on different factors to decide whether to grant a stay such as prospect of prompt compliance with the ward, hardship to one of the parties, risk of non-recovery and irreparable harm to the award debtor. Also, ICSID practice shows that even though the Convention is silent on this issue, committees have generally held that they are empowered to condition the stay of enforcement on the granting of security by the requesting party.

  • PDF

A comparative Analysis of Perception of Health Professionals and Pharmaceutical Companies on the Positive List System (선별등재 제도에 대한 전문가와 제약회사의 인식도 비교분석)

  • Ha, Dong-Mun;Lee, Su-Kyoung;Kim, Dae-Up;Chung, Kyu-Hyuck;Lee, Eui-Kyung
    • YAKHAK HOEJI
    • /
    • v.54 no.4
    • /
    • pp.309-315
    • /
    • 2010
  • The Positive List System was newly introduced in South Korea as of January 2007. This study aims to survey and compare perception of and attitudes toward the Positive List System in the process of new drug listing that health professionals and pharmaceutical companies have. 50 professionals and 52 companies answered the questionnaire regarding health policy environments, policy decision/enforcement process, policy effects and satisfaction related to introducing the Positive List System. SAS 9.1 was used for statistical analyses. The results showed that participants had the general sympathy with health policy environments for the introduction of the Positive List System into South Korea. However, the response rates of policy decision/enforcement process and effects were negative and these tendencies were more striking in pharmaceutical companies. As for policy satisfaction, participants marked positive responses more than negative ones. It is necessary to remedy and supplement problems with policy decision/enforcement policy and effects revealed in this study and to improve the Positive List System through gathering opinions among groups and organization concerned.

A Study on the Enforcement of Interim Award of Arbitral Tribunal in International Commercial Arbitration (국제상사중재에서 중재판정부에 의한 임의중재판정의 집행에 관한 연구)

  • Yu, Byoung-Yook
    • THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
    • /
    • v.46
    • /
    • pp.381-406
    • /
    • 2010
  • The enforcement of international arbitration raises a variety of procedural and related issues in national and international arbitral laws. In addition to the problems it is not easy to understand the rights and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal. Many countries and international rules allow the arbitral tribunal to submit the interim measures applied by a dispute party. However, interim measures are not recognised and enforced by itself in international commercial arbitration. It has not been completed in the rules of arbitration nationally and internationally. This is the reason why the confirmation of international and national laws is important to effect interim measures practically. In the case of Korean arbitral laws do not include articles of enforcement of interim measures even permit rights of decision of interim measures by arbitral tribunal in the national arbitral laws improperly and unreliably. This paper discuses the deficits of enforcement of interim measures which is submitted the type of award by the arbitral tribunal. The paper also points out and refers the revised model law of arbitration by UNCITRAL in 2006 which was changed to allow the interim award and should be imposed its enforcement of any types of interim measures by the arbitral tribunal in international commercial arbitration.

  • PDF

Recognition or Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the German Civil Procedure Act (독일민사소송법상 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행 - 「독일민사소송법」 제1061조를 중심으로 -)

  • Sung, Joon-Ho
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.29 no.2
    • /
    • pp.107-132
    • /
    • 2019
  • The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

A Study on The effect of Set aside Arbitral award made abroad (중재지인 외국에서 취소된 중재판정의 효력에 관한 고찰)

  • 김명엽
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.13 no.2
    • /
    • pp.103-122
    • /
    • 2004
  • Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

  • PDF

A Case Study on the Recognition and Enforcement of Korean Commercial Arbitration Awards (Laying stress on the precedent of Korean supreme court) (중재판정의 승인과 집행사례연구 - 우리나라 대법원판례(大法院判例)를 중심(中心)으로 -)

  • Shin, Han-Dong
    • THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
    • /
    • v.49
    • /
    • pp.61-86
    • /
    • 2011
  • Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

  • PDF