A recent Supreme Court decision is the first in Lithuanian case law on the issue of the arbitrability of public procurement disputes. However, it has already sparked a debate among experts. Is it a Pandora's box, opening up the possibility of more disputes being deemed non-arbitrable, or is it a necessary weapon against bad-faith actions arising from public procurement relationships?
Disputes arising from contractual and other relations in the world of sport are normally settled by specialised sports arbitration bodies. A Court of Appeal decision recently raised the prospect that arbitration awards to settle disputes between professional sportspeople and their clubs might be ineligible for recognition and enforcement. However, the position of the courts now looks more reassuring.
Although the Supreme Court is essentially positive towards arbitration, its jurisprudence sometimes creates more surprise than stability. Although it seems clear that a court must refrain from assessing an arbitration clause if the question of the tribunal's jurisdiction is already a matter of contention in arbitration proceedings, it is less clear what approach a court may take if arbitral proceedings have not yet been initiated.
It is often said that litigation is more advantageous than arbitration due to the possibility of securing enforcement of the court's decision by applying for interim measures. This is only partially true. Although under the Law on Commercial Arbitration the arbitral tribunal has limited possibilities to decide on application of interim measures, this might easily be solved by applying to the court of general jurisdiction.
In Lithuania, Belarusian arbitral awards may be enforced only once they have been recognized and authorized for enforcement by the Lithuanian Court of Appeals. Belarusian arbitral awards cannot be reviewed on the merits; rather, they can be considered only on the basis of certain conditions that may constitute grounds for non-recognition.
Including: Arbitration Institutions; National and International Arbitration Regulations; Arbitration Agreements; Non-arbitrable Disputes; Arbitrators; Proceedings; Expenses; Interim Measures; Challenges; Recognition and Enforcement; Other Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
A Court of Appeals decision has confirmed that disputes arising from insolvency issues are not arbitrable. The recent decision overturns its previous interpretation, applies an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the non-arbitrability of disputes related to insolvency proceedings and contradicts the practice of many arbitration-friendly jurisdictions.