LogoLogo Light
  • Home
  • Latest Insights
  • Legal Framework
  • Q & A
  • Team
  • Contact us
  • Home
  • Latest Insights
  • Legal Framework
  • Q & A
  • Team
  • Contact us

Latest insights

  • You are here:
  • Home
  • Bulgarian Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutionality Of The Public Order Revocation
Blog Image
Uncategorized

Bulgarian Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutionality Of The Public Order Revocation

  • On July 6, 2022

A court panel of the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) has recently asked the Constitutional Court whether the revocation of the public order as one of the legal grounds for setting aside arbitral awards contradicts the Constitution. The said revocation was made in 2017 via the major changes in the local International Commercial Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). The reason for trashing the public order remains shrouded in mystery, as some argue this was deliberate, and other – that it was legislative oversight.

What bothers the SCC?

The underlying dispute which led to the Constitutional Court referral is a long-lasting saga between the former Bulgarian Agency for Privatisation and Post-Privatisation Control (now the Public Enterprises and Control Agency (the Agency)) and a private company – KG Maritime Shipping JSCo (KG Maritime) – regarding the privatization of the Shipping Bulgarian Navy JSCo. The Agency claimed penalties under the privatization contract from KG Maritime for alleged contractual non-performance to maintain certain average annual total tonnage of the navy’s ships for the agreed 10-year period. The dispute was considered twice by arbitral tribunals with the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and with the latest award the tribunal found that KG Maritime did not owe a penalty in the amount of approx. EUR. 13,800,000 to the Agency. Now, the award is challenged by the Agency before the SCC. Among other grounds for setting aside, the Agency claims that the award contradicts the public order (which, however, was not among the existing legal grounds for setting aside as of the moment of filing of the claim for challenging the award due to the abovementioned 2017 amendments).

The SCC decided to suspend the proceedings and ask the Constitutional Court whether the changes in the Arbitration Act regarding public order contradicted the Bulgarian Constitution[i].

The SCC’s reasoning

The SCC based its request on several grounds[ii]:

  • Insufficient protection of fundamental rights such as the right to seek court protection in case of violation or threatening one’s rights and legal interests (Arts. 56, 121 and 122 of the Constitution) and the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy (Arts. 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 47 of the Charter of EU of the Fundamental Rights). These rights as per the SCC required an effective court control (a mechanism for review) depending on the specifics of the case, and in the arbitration proceedings this control means setting aside proceedings. However, as contradiction with public order could not be invoked anymore, these rights were insufficiently guaranteed by the Arbitration Act, especially in cases of violations of fundamental legal principles.
  • The historic interpretation of the Arbitration Act. The original motives for adoption of the Arbitration Act stipulated that the grounds for setting aside should mirror those for denying enforcement under the New York Convention (the latter explicitly envisages the contradiction with public order as a possible ground for denying enforcement). The SCC explicitly clarified that it did not claim contradiction of the Arbitration Act with the Convention, but merely made this reference to clarify the legislative intentions behind adopting the said rules (i.e. for the purposes of interpretation).
  • Protection of EU imperative law. SCC pointed out that it was possible to have a contradiction with an imperative EU norm that is part of Bulgarian public order when resolving a dispute via arbitration. As the arbitral tribunal has no powers to refer the matter to the CJEU for preliminary ruling (because it is not a state court), the state courts were the last guardian that should consider the matter and potentially ask the CJEU for interpretation. However, as the contradiction with public order could not be invoked before the state courts in the set aside proceedings anymore, the court was ultimately deprived from this opportunity.

What our experts say on the matter?

Our Dispute Resolution Team has commented on this legislative change in the past expressing exactly the concerns of the SCC (see an article from 2018 in Bulgarian here). We expressed the view that the repealing of the contradiction with public order by the legislator is unconstitutional and have encouraged supreme judges to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court when there is a good occasion. On a separate note, we have urged the legislator to reinstate public order among the legal grounds for setting aside as this is how things stand in almost all arbitration friendly jurisdictions. The aim is to protect the parties from bribes, frauds, forgeries, flagrant violations of fundamental mandatory rules, and other similar major defects of a potential award/arbitration proceedings fundamentally affecting the basic legal concepts of fairness and justice. Of course, this ground should be applied narrowly and should not be used by the state courts as an attempt to reconsider a given dispute on the merits.

What is the opposite view? 

There are also opposite views in the legal doctrine, arguing that the public order is a concept inherent to the private international law which has protective function – namely to deny the application of a foreign legal system or decision where the result is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the seized court’s legal system. Hence, if a foreign substantive law applies to an arbitration seated in Bulgaria, then a potential contradiction with the public order should be tackled in the arbitration proceedings themselves, provided that the preconditions therefor are present. Following this line of argumentation, a Bulgarian court or arbitral tribunal seated in Bulgaria cannot render a decision/award conflicting with the Bulgarian public policy (in substantive sense). A potential contradiction with the public order in procedural sense can be invoked by virtue of the other available grounds for setting the award aside (this view is explained in detail in Zhelyazkova, Ventsislava, Arbitration as a mechanism to resolve disputes concerning rights capable of valuation in monetary terms, Sofia, Nova Zvezda, 2019, pp. 326-328).

Now the ball is in the field of the Constitutional Court. A potential resurrection of the public order may have significant implications for any ongoing and potential set aside proceedings. So, we will monitor the matter closely and will duly update our readers.

Author: Metodi Baykushev


[i] The SCC’s Court Ruling for suspension of the case can be found here: http://www.vks.bg/pregled-akt?type=ot-delo&id=D08E924B5ADE3283C225886F00449959

[ii] The SCC’s Request to the Constitutional Court can be found here: https://www.constcourt.bg/bg/Acts/Download/f45c108c-8166-422e-a403-a2b02aa8cb99

TAGS: arbitral award arbitration arbitration act

Previous Post

Scope of the Arbitration Agreement According to the Bulgarian Supreme Court

Next Post

New CJEU Judgement Regarding the Relationship Between Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation
0 comments on Bulgarian Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutionality Of The Public Order Revocation

Post a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll
@2022 ArbitrationBulgaria
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Terms & Conditions
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All Reject All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We may also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. If we use such, these cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website. For more information of the types of necessary cookies we use, please see our Cookie Policy.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features. Currently, we do not use such cookies.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors. Currently, we do not use such cookies.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads. Currently, we do not use such cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet. Currently, we do not use such cookies.
SAVE & ACCEPT