Proceedings Commenced before the Effective Date of the Act - Chapter 46
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.
46.I. PROCEEDINGS ON INVALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND ON ANNULMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS IN THE TRANSITIONAL REGIME FROM THE 1963 ARBACT TO THE ARBACT (SECTION 46 OF THE ARBACT)
Section 46 of the ArbAct covers situations where applications submitted under Section 20 et seq. of Act No 98/1963 Coll. on arbitration and on the enforcement of arbitral awards (the 1963 ArbAct) remained pending when the present Act entered into effect (on 1 January 1995). However, in this respect the concept and text, often almost word for word, were lifted from the earlier legislation and incorporated into Sections 31 to 34 of the ArbAct. The only minor modification concerned the reasons for submitting an application for the annulment of an arbitral award by a court and the reasons for which a court could decide on the annulment of an arbitral award based on a motion by the parties. In particular, Section 20(7) of the 1963 ArbAct, under which a court was able to decide on the annulment of an arbitral award if the award (i.e. the rendering thereof) had been affected by a crime, was replaced by a much wider range of grounds, i.e. the reasons for which the reopening of proceedings may be sought in civil judicial proceedings [see the commentary on Section 31(i) of the ArbAct].