This is how much the Regional Water Pipeline company has to pay to Strabag, after the Appellate Court has accepted the decision of the International Arbitration Tribunal for International Trade Arbitration (MTK) in Paris and ruled in favor of the Austrian company, choosing from two possible solutions, the one which is complying with the "tendencies in comparable arbitration law" and applying the so-called "rescue" option of the incomplete arbitration clause.
The Commercial Court, as the first instance body in the present case, had a different attitude, and on four occasions refused to admit the decision of the arbitration institution, since the contract did not specify before which court any dispute could be resolved, i.e., where MTK does not generally refer, but the Appellate Court refused three of its decisions, replacing the fourth, ruling in favor of Strabag, and putting an end to a multi-year dispute between the Montenegrin state enterprise and the Austrian company. In 2008, the Regional Water Pipeline company concluded a contract with the Austrian Strabag for which this company was supposed to build the South and land side RV. Strabag, however, did not comply with the deadlines, and after a several-month delay, the contract was terminated at the end of 2009. Strabag's representatives filed a lawsuit in 2010, citing a request for his initiation to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, which in March 2013 ruled in their favor. The Regional Water Pipeline company did not acknowledge the decision from Paris, as the contract did not oblige the eventual dispute to be conducted before the MTK. However, the Austrian company filed a lawsuit before the domestic courts in recognition of the decision of the arbitral tribunal in 2014, so the whole case came to the Economic and Appellate Court, which had completely different legal interpretations and decisions in this case.
The legal basis for refusing to recognize a decision from Paris is that the Commercial Court finds that there is no precision in the Agreement between the Regional Water Pipeline and Strabag before which arbitral institution they would run a dispute if it comes to it.
Unlike this, the Appellate Court had a different attitude. He acknowledged the decision of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and noted that the Regional Water Pipeline had failed to enter a data in the contract which would appoint the arbitration institution, and Strabag failed to notice that that data was not in place.
Text by Dnevne novine, on September 25th, 2018, read more at CdM
