To create a unified interpretation of international agreements between participants in the Commonwealth of Independent States , the CIS Economic Court was established. It is intended to consider emerging conflict situations in the performance of obligations under agreements concluded within the republics of the former USSR. The judicial authority is located in Minsk.
Creation History Information
The idea of establishing the Economic Court came in 1991, when a declaration was signed on cooperation between three countries - Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Under this agreement, states recognized the need for an international arbitration body.
The agreement on the status of a legal institution was signed in 1992. Later, the main participants were joined by Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and other states. Azerbaijan tried to join with some reservations, but this option of entry was rejected.
What is included in the competence?
The main activity of the Economic Court is to resolve interstate conflicts provided for by these agreements of the participants. Based on the signed provisions, the legal authority makes a decision determining the fact of the presence of an offense or its absence. If necessary, special measures are applied to the state to eliminate the conflict situation and its consequences.
The court also fulfills the function of interpreting concluded agreements and other acts of the CIS at the request of the highest authorities that resolve economic disputes in countries. The legal institution includes an equal number of representatives from each state.
Right of appeal
A complaint to the Economic Court is submitted by the interested state directly through the competent authorities or relevant institutions of the Commonwealth of Independent States. An international organization is not authorized to deal with conflict situations or interpretative requests made by business entities or individuals. However, in practice, there have been cases where appeals submitted through the competent authorities have been taken into account.
Institution structure
The composition of the CIS Economic Court is quite complex:
- The full membership includes all current judges. It is convened to conduct case review activities regarding interpretative requests. A decision can only be made if more than 66 percent of the officials gathered at the meeting. No judge should abstain in voting. It is impossible to appeal decisions taken in full force.
- Boards for litigation in conflict situations are formed of three or five people. When creating them, the composition of the judicial structure should be complete. The decision is made by a majority of members of the current collegium.
- Plenum is the highest collegial body of a legal institution. It consists of: the chairman, deputies and judges.
Functioning in practice
For the period 1994-2016 The Economic Court examined 124 cases. According to them, 105 decisions and advisory opinions, 18 rejected decisions on applications for consideration, 8 wordings on the explanation of decisions taken earlier, and 2 decisions of the highest collegial body were adopted.
The bulk of this is interpretation cases, among which are the categories listed below:
- on the performance of economic obligations;
- constituent documents and the legal framework of the CIS;
- status and authority of organizations;
- the procedure for resolving conflict situations;
- agreements governing the interaction of arbitration and other courts at the highest level;
- agreements governing the process of providing citizens with socio-economic rights in the territory of the former Soviet Union.
As for interstate disputes, they make up a small proportion of cases. In the first two decades, the Economic Court examined a total of 13 conflict situations. However, in several cases, it was refused to take the case directly to production. One of the most significant decisions in the practice of a legal body is the interpretation of an article on the protection of investor rights.
Shortcomings
With the determination of the Economic Court, everything became clear, but it is not as ideal as it might seem. There are certain disadvantages:
- Limited competence cannot be compared with the terms of reference of other regional courts. It is much narrower, since it does not apply to disputes in other areas of activity (cultural, social or legal).
- The nature of the decisions made is advisory, and not at all binding. Only those or other measures that are proposed to be taken by a particular state are determined.
- Members of a legal body are appointed from countries that are members of its body. In other structures, they are chosen by international organizations. Participants can only offer some kind of candidacy.
- The introduction of an additional instance like the Plenary, which includes the chairmen of certain participating States. There are no such bodies in other international courts.
- Possibility of recalling judges by countries that appointed them before. In other institutions, termination of powers is decided within the courts themselves or by international organizations.
These shortcomings make you think about whether this institution is judicial. It was created at the end of the last century, when the bureaucratic elites did not fully understand that there was no longer a single state. The creation of such a body is an attempt to come up with something like an arbitration court operating in the territory of the former Soviet republics. The result was an interstate organization, watching that no one made any claims to anyone.
Reform process
Over the entire period of the functioning of the legal institution, opinions have often been expressed on the finalization of constituent documents. An analysis of the practice of considering interstate cases shows that the capabilities of the judiciary are not very effectively involved. Urgent modernization is needed. As part of the improvement of the structure, a special project was developed. However, it is still being negotiated.
Final part
Although the decision of the Economic Court is not binding, it allows you to direct a particular state into the legal framework. The point is not only that advisory decisions are not required to be implemented, but that there is no legal enforcement mechanism. The rulings of this body cannot be a prerequisite for the adoption of a case for proceedings in national courts.