CC BY
39
CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS Efimova D.V. (Russian Federation) Email: [email protected]
Efimova Daria Vadimovna - Student, FACULTY OF LAW MM. SPERANSKY, INSTITUTE OF LAW AND NATIONAL SECURITY RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW
Abstract: this article provides analyses of confidentiality in modern arbitration proceedings. The article includes comparison between Arbitration Rules of different countries in certain aspects. The examples when evidence containing confidential information can be submitted as admissible are provided. The article is of great help as it contains useful pieces of advice how to avoid possible problems devoted to the duty of confidentiality.
Keywords: confidentiality, arbitration, admissible evidence, legal impediment.
КОНФИДЕНЦИАЛЬНОСТЬ АРБИТРАЖНОГО РАЗБИРАТЕЛЬСТВА Ефимова Д.В. (Российская Федерация)
Ефимова Дарья Вадимовна - студент, юридический факультет им. М.М. Сперанского, Институт права и национальной безопасности Российская Академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации, г. Москва
Аннотация: в данной статье приводится анализ конфиденциальности в современных арбитражных разбирательствах. В статье приведено сравнение Арбитражных регламентов разных стран в определенных аспектах. Приведены примеры, когда доказательства, содержащие конфиденциальную информацию, могут быть представлены как допустимые. Эта статья обладает высокой практической ценностью, поскольку содержит полезные советы, как избежать возможных проблем, связанных с обязанностью соблюдения конфиденциальности.
Ключевые слова: конфиденциальность, арбитражное разбирательство, допустимые доказательства, юридические препятствия.
One of the most fundamental principles of both domestic and international arbitration is «party autonomy». Parties have freedom to defer their dispute to an arbitral panel rather than a court for a variety of reasons. Confidentiality has always been considered as one of the advantages of international commercial arbitration compared to litigation. Article 45 of HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules of year 2018 provides that: «Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, no party or party representative may publish, disclose or communicate any information relating to: (a) the arbitration under the arbitration agreement; or (b) an award or Emergency Decision made in the arbitration». This issue finds its reflection in Article 39 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
However, a request for transparency of the arbitration process has recently become pressing, especially for legal transparency (publication of arbitral decisions, both on procedure and merits, thus establishing available body of case law) [1]. The arbitration rules of the HKIAC and the SIAC allow the publication of arbitral awards with several amendments. At the same time, according to the Arbitration Rules of the SIAC, the formal consent of the parties to such publication is not required. In turn, the Rules of the HKIAC indicate that each party has a right to express objections to the publication of the award. Article 9 (4) of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration allows the tribunal to make certain «arrangements» - appropriate redactions that are necessary when it comes to maintain the parties' confidentiality concerns.
However, as of 2017, HKIAC has not published any arbitral award [2]. Consequently, the HKIAC does not practice publishing awards at all.
Confidentiality is not absolute, exceptions occur when a decision in another case is relevant because it has a significant impact on the progress of the case. In Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v. Mew 4, Colman J recognized that an arbitration award may stand in a different position from documents disclosed in arbitration. Firstly, because it resolved the parties' dispute and gave reasons for doing so. Secondly, because challenge in the courts was capable of rendering it a public document. An award should be disclosed to a third party against whom a party in the arbitration was litigating on related matters. A further exception was approved in London & Leeds Estates v. Paribas Ltd. (No 2). An expert witness gave inconsistent evidence about rent reviews in two arbitrations. There was therefore a legitimate basis for allowing the disclosure of his proof of evidence from one arbitration in the second.
The question whether the document which contains confidential information can be submitted as admissible evidence arises. In the absence of rules governing admissibility of evidence in arbitration proceedings, it is reasonable to rely on a test of admissibility for illegally obtained evidence formulated by a distinguished scholar Cherie Blair [3]. The first criteria of this test requires the party who seeks to submit the evidence to have «clean hands». In Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan arbitral tribunal admitted as evidence documents illegally obtained by hacking the Kazakhstan government's computer network as claimants relied on documents published by WikiLeaks and were themselves not involved in the illegal obtaining of evidence. In contrast, it is important to mention the doctrine «fruits of the poisonous tree» which is nowadays used in the civil cases. The admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence in International Arbitration is evaluated under this approach. Evidence (fruit) is inadmissible if it has been obtained as a result of illegal search (tree). Legal impediment in this context is duty of confidentiality in international arbitration. If the evidence became known to the tribunal through actions of the third party which had no interest in the case ('disinterested party'), even being acquired by illegal means can be considered prima facie admissible. The notion of a disinterested party has been clarified by the ICJ. In its decision in Nicaragua v United States of America (1986) the court explained that a 'disinterested party' is 'one who is not a party to the proceedings and stands to gain or lose nothing from its outcome'. Section two is devoted to the evaluation whether public interest favour rejecting the wrongfully disclosed document as inadmissible. Cherie Blair, the founder of this test, states that «while making decisions, tribunals have to balance policy interests (such as legal professional privilege or diplomatic immunity) against the need to find the truth». Legal impediment refers to confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, that is why it is more probable that confidential document will not be allowed to the proceedings. Part three of the test deals with evaluation whether the interest of justice favour the admission of the wrongfully disclosed document? International principles such as the need of fair and just decisions, as well as interests of procedural integrity and equality of arms, should always be weighted. Arbitrators can dismiss evidence that contain confidential information to avoid wrongdoing in the future. However, dismissing of such evidence that proves significant circumstances for a case can lead to important facts being unconsidered. It creates obstacles for making a just decision.
Documents listed above do not have any provisions regarding remedies that a party may use in case of breach of confidentiality, this can cause practical difficulties. The analysis of case study provides that there are the following remedies - an injunction, measures for preliminary securing a claim and compensation of damages. However, parties always face problems of justifying the need for the court to apply this or that measure, proving the existence and amount of damages, as well as the link between the breach of confidentiality and damages. Arbitration courts often refer to their lack of competence to consider a confidentiality dispute in cases where their regulations do not contain legal regulation on this issue. However, the HKIAC Rules state that arbitrators can act on their own discretion and admit the evidence that otherwise would be inadmissible. Article 22.2 of the HKIAC Rules provide that the arbitral tribunal shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. It might be done to decide if it is necessary to apply strict rules of evidence. In order to avoid
88
problems that may arise in connection with breach of confidentiality, the parties to the contract should: include a clause on confidentiality in the contract; enter into a separate confidentiality agreement; when drafting an arbitration clause, choose the Rules that contain the most detailed regulation of the obligation to keep and respect confidentiality [4].
References / Список литературы
1. Asser International Sports Law Blog. [Электронный ресурс] Режим доступа: https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/ Яз. англ./ (дата обращения: 04.03.2018).
2. Moser Michael J. and Bao Chiann, A Guide to the HKIAC Arbitration Rules. Oxford, 2017.
3. Blair Cherie and Gojkovic' Ema Vidak. WikiLeaks and Beyond: Discerning an International Standard for the Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence. Published Advance Access, 2018.
4. Гаврилова О.Г.Принцип конфиденциальности в международном коммерческом арбитраже. Сборник работ 68-й научной конференции студентов и аспирантов Белорусского государственного университета: в 3 ч. Ч. 2. Минск: БГУ, 2011. С. 91-93.
LIMITATION OF FREEDOM IN THE CRIMINAL PENALTY SYSTEM Kozlova VA. (Russian Federation) Email: [email protected]
Kozlova Valeria Alekseevna - Student, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW, TOMSK STATE UNIVERSITY, TOMSK
Abstract: the problem of criminal punishment is one of the most complex and multifaceted in the Criminal Sciences. At present its importance and relevance are determined by the fact that the criminal law is implementing itself, first and foremost, by the threat of punishment and its application. The correct determination of the essence, content and purposes of punishment, improving the system of penalties and activities of organs and institutions, their designating and executing agencies, is one of the most relevant objectives of the law and practice of combating crime. Keywords: analysis, criminal law, theory development.
ОГРАНИЧЕНИЕ СВОБОДЫ В СИСТЕМЕ УГОЛОВНЫХ
НАКАЗАНИЙ Козлова В.А. (Российская Федерация)
Козлова Валерия Алексеевна - студент, кафедра уголовного права, Томский государственный университет, г. Томск
Аннотация: проблема уголовного наказания является одной из наиболее сложных и многогранных в уголовно-правовой науке. В настоящее время ее значение и актуальность определяются тем, что уголовное право реализует себя, прежде всего, угрозой наказания и его применением. Правильное определение сущности, содержания и целей наказания, совершенствование системы наказаний и деятельности органов и учреждений, их назначающих и исполняющих, является одной из актуальнейших задач правовой науки и практики борьбы с преступностью.
Ключевые слова: анализ, уголовное право, разработка теории.
Для того чтобы выяснить место и роль ограничения свободы в системе уголовных наказаний, нужно выявить соотношение данного наказания с другими мерами уголовно-правового характера.
