Dear Colleagues
As summer draws to a close, Belgravia Law reflects on its time in Belgrade for the Eurasian Legal Professionals’ Forum “English Law Day”. We are delighted to present our latest legal update, tailored for our esteemed peers in the legal community across Serbia, Montenegro and local jurisdictions.
As a firm deeply committed to fostering strong international relationships and staying abreast of global legal developments, we recognise the importance of sharing with you the latest trends, regulatory changes and key insights that may impact our shared practice areas.
This newsletter aims to keep you updated on legal news and act as a platform to strengthen our professional ties and explore opportunities for collaboration. We hope you find the content informative and valuable in your ongoing efforts to provide exceptional legal services.
Kind regards
Belgravia Law
In Serbia, arbitrations are governed by the Serbian Law on Arbitration (“SAL”).
Article 50 of SAL codifies the law applicable to the arbitration:
The arbitral tribunal in an international arbitration shall make the award by application of the law or legal rules determined by the parties’ agreement.
Any designation of the law of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressly agreed by the parties, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules.
If the parties did not designate the applicable law or legal rules, the arbitral tribunal in an international arbitration shall determine that law or rules on the basis of conflict of laws rules it finds appropriate.
The arbitral tribunal shall always take into account the terms of the contract and usages.
On this basis, the starting point under SAL is to look at what the parties have agreed. Further, where the parties have made a choice of law, the presumption is this will be the applicable law, rather than the conflict of law rules to be applied to determine the applicable law.
Where the parties have not agreed on the applicable law, the Tribunal will make a determination in accordance with the conflict of law rules “it finds appropriate”. In determining the appropriate conflict of law rules, the Tribunal must have regard to the terms of the contract, which can include considerations of choice of law clauses, the place and subject matter of the contract as well as the jurisdiction of the parties.
In England, the statute governing English-seated arbitrations is the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “AA 1996”). Presently, the AA 1996 is silent on the law applicable to the arbitration agreement where the parties do not agree. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, an implied choice can be determined according to principles of English contract law. If an implied choice of law cannot be inferred, the law with “the closest and most real connection” will be applied. The law of the substantive contract is presumed to be the law applicable to the arbitration.
However, the English Arbitration Bill proposes the following amendment to the AA 1996:
“6A Law applicable to arbitration agreement
(1) The law applicable to an arbitration agreement is—
(a) the law that the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration agreement, or
(b) where no such agreement is made, the law of the seat of the arbitration in question.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), agreement between the parties that a particular law applies to an agreement of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement.”
Thus, the Bill intends to reform Enka and amend the mechanism by which English law determines the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in terms which are more certain and predictable. On this basis, both English and Serbian law currently provide the Tribunal with breadth to apply contractual principles to determine the law applicable to the arbitration. However, English law appears to be moving to a more prescriptive approach which allows the parties to easier predict their rights and obligations in the absence of agreeing the applicable law.
Terna Energy is a Serbian company which sells energy on both domestic and foreign markets. Revolut is a financial services company, authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority as an "electronic money institution" (“EMI”).
In August 2024, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) published the latest edition of ICSID’s caseload statistics report, revealing a robust 2024 fiscal year across key metrics. It reports the second-highest number of case registrations in a fiscal year (58) in its history, highlighting its continued significance in investment dispute resolution.
The majority of case registrations (53) were arbitrations under the ICSID Convention, followed by four arbitrations under the Additional Facility Rules and one involving conciliation under the ICSID Convention. ICSID administered 341 cases in total during the fiscal year, the second-highest number in a single year.
Additionally, 17 cases were managed under different procedural rules in FY2024, with 13 utilising the UNCITRAL arbitration rules.
For cases concluded by tribunals in FY2024, 53% of awards favoured investors either partially or entirely, 36% dismissed all of the investors' claims on merits, and 11% found no jurisdiction. These results mirror the historical balance between claimants and respondents.
Alongside the surge in cases, the latest caseload statistics also reveal a noteworthy development: women accounted for 29% of panel appointments during this period. This reflects ongoing efforts to improve gender diversity in international arbitration, with progress still to be made.
In early 2024, Montenegro amended Article 68(f) of its Gambling Act to prohibit gambling operators from accepting mobile and online banking deposits through mechanisms such as PayPal and Apple Pay.
The Montengro Government has confirmed it will re-assess the mandate following public and industry criticism over the ban. In anticipation of the ban, Montengro Bet, the country’s leading trade association in this sector, initiated a petition to stop the amendment which received over 25,000 signatures. Montenegro Bet considers the amendment to be “unconstitutional” and contrary to EU standards. While Montengro is not a member of the EU, it has been negotiating to join since 2012.
In 2021, the European Commission urged Montengro to enhance its efforts against money laundering. However, the e-payments ban encourages the use of cash payments in the gambling industry, which the EU considers to be higher-risk. EU initiatives such as the European Digital Identity Scheme seek to enable cross-border, mutual recognition of national electronic identification, as well as introduce the EU Digital Identity Wallet. Critics suggest the amendment could hinder Montenegro’s efforts in joining the EU in light of the EU’s pro-digital stance.
The outcome of the Government’s revision of the e-payments ban is yet to be published publicly. Given the strong outcry against the ban, as well as at least one gambling operator preparing an ICSID claim against the Government, we are interested to observe the Government’s response.
On 18 July 2024, the Arbitration Bill (the “Bill”), designed to modernise the Arbitration Act 1996, was reintroduced to Parliament following its announcement in the King's Speech the day before. The Bill, presented by Justice Minister Lord Ponsonby, incorporates measures from previous legislation lost during the pre-election period in May 2024 and builds upon last year’s Law Commission recommendations.
The updated Bill aims to enhance the UK’s arbitration laws, ensuring London remains a leading global hub for arbitration. It seeks to make arbitration quicker, more cost-effective and more efficient. A provision expected to reduce nuisance claims and improve overall arbitration efficiency is Section 39A, granting tribunals the power to issue summary awards where a party has no realistic prospects of success.
Additionally, the Bill introduces the arbitrator’s duty to disclose relevant circumstances which could raise doubts as to their impartiality, further ensuring the integrity of the arbitration process. According to the UK government, these changes will bolster the UK’s position in the global dispute resolution market, contributing at least £2.5 billion annually to the British economy.
Lord Ponsonby emphasised the government’s commitment to maintaining the UK’s leadership in dispute resolution and enhancing the efficiency of legal processes for businesses and individuals alike.
Bar Chair Sam Townend KC welcomed the bill, noting it supports London’s reputation as a premier centre for international arbitration and contributes positively to the country's export income. The Bill reached its second reading in the House of Lords on 31 July 2024.
The revised Bill, introduced to Parliament on 18 July 2024, can be found here.
For all enquiries please write to: contact@belgravia.law.
Download this newsletter in PDF