- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B
Cantonal Court, Tuzla, 4 June 2002, Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 31 July 2002, Cantonal Court, Tuzla, 15 January 2003, and Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19 May 2003 (Inkometal AG v. Koksno Hemijski Kombinat d. d. Lukavac)
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B
The Bosnian courts first granted and then denied recognition of an ICC award rendered in Austria in respect of an agreement for the lease of industrial property in Bosnia. The Cantonal Court of Tuzla granted recognition (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 A). By the present decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the national state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning real estate in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On remand, the Cantonal Court found along the lines of the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 C). On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 D).
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.