CONSTRUING OF APPLICATION OF ANY TREATIES GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT WITHIN CIS

Judgment No. С-1/1-97 dated November 11, 1997 on construing Part two Item 3 in the Regulations of the Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States dated July 6, 1992  according to which Part “any other disputes related to execution of any agreements and other acts of the Commonwealth adopted on the basis thereof may be assigned to the jurisdiction of the CIS Economic Court by the agreements signed between the member-States”, clarifies the notion of “any other disputes” and specifies which disputable issues and between which CIS member-States may be settled by the CIS Economic Court.

The CIS Economic Court has established that the Regulations dated July 6, 1992 specified the following two grounds for the Court jurisdiction: obligatory and optional. Any disputes arising from fulfillment of economic obligations, and any disputes on compliance of the normative and other acts of the States with the agreements and other acts of the Commonwealth relate to the obligatory jurisdiction. The Court has established the grounds for examination of cases within such obligatory jurisdiction (by general rule, one-sided statement of claim of the concerned State), clarified the notion of “economic obligations”.

Probability of optional jurisdiction is provided for by Part two Article 4 in the Regulations: through bringing of other disputes to the Court on the grounds of the jurisdictional clause included by the States into the agreements signed by the same with regard to any issues.

In the Court’s opinion, under “any other disputes” mentioned in Part two Item 3 in the Regulations of the CIS Economic Court, the disputes shall be understood, which are related to execution of any agreements and acts of the Commonwealth (adopted on the basis thereof) concerning the issues of joint activities of the CIS member-States, and assigned by the agreements between the CIS member-States to the jurisdiction of the CIS Economic Court. The grounds for bringing of any dispute arising between the States which are the parties to a certain agreement shall be the jurisdictional clauses contained therein, irrespective of participation of such States in the Agreement on the Status of the CIS Economic Court dated July 6, 1992.

The Court has also specified the nature which the jurisdictional clause may have; defined the meaning and consequences of use of one or another wording, e.g. “the Parties shall bring the matter into the Economic Court for settlement”, “the disputes may be brought by the Parties to the Economic Court for settlement”, “the disputes may be examined (settled) by the Economic Court”, etc.

Judgment No. С-1/19-96 dated May 15, 1997 on construing the Treaty on Organization of the Economic Union dated September 24, 1993 clarifies to what intergovernmental judicial bodies the CIS member-States may apply and what financial costs may be entailed by such application. According to Part four Article 31 in the Treaty on Organization of the Economic Union dated September 24, 1993, the Economic Union member-States has agreed to settle disputable issues in other international judicial bodies, should it be impossible to settle the same through negotiations or in the CIS Economic Court.

When making such a decision, the CIS Economic Court had, first of all, to decide on obligatory nature of its jurisdiction in respect of any disputes arising from the Treaty dated September 24, 1993. The Court has come to a conclusion that inclusion of the jurisdictional clause into the text of the Treaty on Organization of the Economic Union means recognition of obligatory nature of the CIS Economic Court’s jurisdiction by all States which have ratified the Treaty, in respect of all disputes that can arise from such Treaty. Here, compromise settlement between the Parties is not required, and the Court Judgment shall be binding upon all Parties of such dispute. Proceeding from specific character of the Economic Union organized by the Treaty dated September 24, 1993, the Court also believes that such mentioned jurisdictional clause assigns to the Court’s jurisdiction also the disputes between the Economic Union member-States arising from any agreements signed in the performance of all obligations assumed under the Treaty dated September 24, 1993.

Reference to any other international bodies for settlement of any disputes, omitting the CIS Economic Court, or appeal against the Court Judgments in accordance with Parts one, two and four Article 31 in the Treaty on Organization of the Economic Union shall be impossible. The Treaty member-States may bring their disputes related to construing and execution of the Treaty and of any agreements signed in the performance of all obligations assumed under the Treaty, to any other international judicial bodies, in particular, to the UN International Court and the Standing Chamber of the Arbitration Justice, only in the event that there are no necessary prerequisites for examination of the case on points of fact by the CIS Economic Court.

The legal ground for applying to the universal judicial bodies shall be either signing of a special agreement (a compromise) by the Parties concerning the settlement of a particular dispute in the appropriate body, or filing an application by a certain State on declaring obligatory nature of the jurisdiction of a particular court concerning all legal issues in respect of the disputes with the States which have filed similar applications.

Advisory Opinion No. С-1/19-96 dated May 15, 1997 on the issue, to what particular international judicial bodies the member-States of the Commonwealth of Independent States may apply, specifies the bodies authorized to examine disputes between the CIS member-States, characterizes and defines the grounds for jurisdiction thereof. In particular, what concerns the jurisdiction subject-matter and scope, the UN International Court is a universal judicial body without any restrictions. Any other international judicial bodies shall either examine disputes within the frames of any integration unions (the European Community Court, the OSCE Reconciliation and Arbitration Court) or have special (restricted) subject jurisdiction irrespective whether they are regional or universal bodies (the European Human Rights Court, the International Maritime Tribunal). Any disputes between the CIS member-States concerning their obligations assumed within CIS shall be outside the jurisdiction of such mentioned bodies.

The Advisory Opinion examines the opportunity to refer to the UN International Court and the Standing Chamber of the Arbitration Justice for settlement of any disputes between the CIS member-States, and also assesses financial costs related to such reference.

Judgment No. 05/95 dated May 30, 1995 on construing application of the Regulations of the Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States dated July 6, 1992 is pertinent to the procedure of the Court Judgments publication in the editions of the Commonwealth and the mass media of the States which are the parties to the Agreement of the CIS Economic Court Status dated July 6, 1992.

The CIS Economic Court has come to a conclusion that according to Item 16 in the Regulations of the CIS Economic Court, the Court Judgments and Resolutions of its Plenary Sessions shall be subject to mandatory publishing in the editions of the Commonwealth and the mass media of the States which are the parties to the Agreement of the CIS Economic Court Status dated July 6, 1992, irrespective of their participation in the proceedings.

Advisory Opinion No. 01-1/1-2001 dated May 15, 2001 on construing the Regulations of the Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States dated July 6, 1992 clarifies whether any limitation of action exists pertinent to settlement of any intergovernmental economic disputes, which arise from fulfillment by the same of their respective economic obligations and are assigned to the jurisdiction of the CIS Economic Court according to Article 3 in the Regulations of the CIS Economic Court.

In the opinion of the CIS Economic Court, the answer to such question shall be determined by the judicial nature of the disputes assigned to its jurisdiction, which disputes arise from execution of any acts of official public nature (the Treaties between the States, any acts of the bodies (institutes) of the Commonwealth). No limitation of action shall be applied to claims of the States arising from the fact of non-fulfillment, by the same, of their respective economic obligations provided for by such acts, as the norms and practice of the international law do not establish any limitation of action.

Claims of the States arising from any international purchase-and-sale agreements shall be subject to application of limitation of action established by the New York Limitation of Action Convention in the International Purchase and Sale of Goods 1974, as amended by the Protocol of 1980, in accordance with the terms specified by the Convention. Claims of the States arising from private legal bargains closed in their respective territories and regulated by their respective national legislations shall be subject to limitation of action in accordance with the general practice, save as otherwise is established by their respective national legislations.