Arbitrajul si ordinea publica in sistemul comunitar

 

In Revista Studii de Drept Romanesc, nr. 3-4/2007 a aparut un articol cu privire la raportul dintre arbitraj si dreptul european.

Partile articolului sunt urmatoarele:

1. privire generala asupra ordinii publice juridice comunitare

2. relatia dintre arbitraj si institutiile comunitare

3. impactul dreptului comunitar al conscurentei asupra arbitrajului (din perspectiva Regulamentului 1/2003)

In articol sunt citate urmatoarele cauze:

-  Aff. 36/75, Arrêt du 28/10/1975, Rutili / Ministre de l’intérieur (Rec.1975,p.1219)
(bibliografia cauzei) in care este consacrata comunitarizarea conceptului de “ordine publica”, ca o derogare de la libertatile comunitare.

“La justification de mesures destinees a sauvegarder l’ordre public doit etre appreciee au regard de toutes regles de droit communautaire ayant pour objet, d’une part, de limiter l’appreciation discretionnaire des etats membres en la matiere et, d’autre part, de garantir la defense des droits des personnes soumises, de ce chef , a des mesures restrictives.

De telles limites et garanties resultent notamment de l’obligation, imposee aux etats membres, de fonder exclusivement les mesures prises sur le comportement individuel des personnes qui en font l’objet, de s’abstenir de toutes mesures qui seraient utilisees a des fins etrangeres aux besoins de l’ordre public ou porteraient atteinte a l’exercice des droits syndicaux, de communiquer sans delai, a toute personne frappee de mesures restrictives - et sous reserve du cas ou des motifs interessant la surete de l’etat s’y opposeraient -, les raisons qui sont a la base de la decision prise, enfin, d’assurer l’exercice effectif des voies de recours.“

Aff. C-127/97, Arrêt du 01/06/1999, Eco Swiss (Bibliografia cauzei)

” Where domestic rules of procedure require a national court to grant an application for annulment of an arbitration award where such an application is founded on failure to observe national rules of public policy, it must also grant such an application where it is founded on failure to comply with the prohibition laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC). That provision constitutes a fundamental provision which is essential for the accomplishment of the tasks entrusted to the Community and, in particular, for the functioning of the internal market. Also, Community law requires that questions concerning the interpretation of the prohibition laid down in Article 85 should be open to examination by national courts when they are asked to determine the validity of an arbitration award and that it should be possible for those questions to be referred, if necessary, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

2 Community law does not require a national court to refrain from applying domestic rules of procedure according to which an interim arbitration award which is in the nature of a final award and in respect of which no application for annulment has been made within the prescribed time-limit acquires the force of res judicata and may no longer be called in question by a subsequent arbitration award, even if this is necessary in order to examine, in proceedings for annulment of a subsequent arbitration award, whether an agreement which the interim award held to be valid in law is nevertheless void under Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC), where the time-limit prescribed does not render excessively difficult or virtually impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.”

Roxana Munteanu, Considerations sur la relation entre l’arbitrage et le droit europeen, SDR, nr. 3-4/2007.