Interim Measures - Chapter 22 - Arbitration Law of Czech Republic: Practice and Procedure
Alexander J. Bělohlávek, Univ. Professor, Dr.iur., Mgr., Dipl. Ing. oec/MB, Dr.h.c. Lawyer admitted and practising in Prague/CZE (Branch N.J./US), Senior Partner of the Law Offices Bělohlávek, Dept. of Law, Faculty of Economics, Ostrava, CZE, Dept. of Int. and European Law, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno, CZE (visiting), Chairman of the Commission on Arbitration ICC National Committee CZE, Arbitrator in Prague, Vienna, Kiev etc. Member of ASA, DIS, Austrian Arb. Association. The President of the WJA – the World Jurist Association, Washington D.C./USA.
Originally from: Arbitration Law of Czech Republic: Practice and Procedure
22.I. SECTION 22 OF THE ARBACT
Under domestic law, arbitrators do not have the authority to issue interim measures even if an arbitration agreement has been duly concluded in a case and the arbitrators are otherwise authorized to hear and adjudicate on the dispute itself. According to the domestic concept of arbitration, only the courts have the authority to issue interim measures. Therefore, Section 74 et seq. of the CCP is applicable to the issuance of interim measures. However, in cases where an arbitration agreement exists and arbitrators thus have the authority (jurisdiction) to hear and adjudicate on the merits, in terms of the reasons for issuing an interim measure Section 22 of the ArbAct should be viewed as a lex specialis in relation to the provisions of Section 74(1) of the CCP. In these cases, interim measures may only be issued if enforcement of the arbitral award could be endangered, but not when provisional arrangements are needed to govern relations between the participants.1