Interpretation of the «Public Policy» Category in Recent Judicial Practice

Abstract

The article studies the concept of «public policy», presents doctrinal definitions of public policy, as well as definitions used in judicial practice, in particular in the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is established that the Ukrainian legislation does not contain a definition of «public policy», but from the analysis of case law it can be concluded that the public policy of any country includes the fundamental principles and principles of justice, morality, state system, political system and economic security, which the state wishes to protect, which means «public policy» is a broad and abstract concept. At the same time, such a position of the legislator, given the case law cited in the article, is justified and reasoned. It is analyzed that the Civil Code of Ukraine lists the grounds on which the transaction can be considered as violating public policy, at the same time, the analysis of case law shows that the category of public policy does not apply to any legal relationship in the state, but only on the essential foundations of law and order. The article also analyzes that the recognition or enforcement of the decisions of an international commercial arbitral tribunal may be denied if the court finds that the recognition and enforcement of this arbitral award is contrary to public policy of Ukraine, as an example listed court cases in which the enforcement of arbitral awards was refused due to a violation of public policy. In view of the above, it is proved in the article that the definition and understanding of the category of public policy is important in recognizing and bringing to the enforcement of international commercial arbitration courts decisions, as well as recognition of transactions as such that violates the public policy, which leads to insignificance of such transactions. It is summarized that today in Ukraine there is no normative definition of the concept of «public policy», and from the analysis of judicial practice we can conclude that judges interpret the concept of «public policy» quite broadly and abstractly. However, given that quite often cases of recognition of a transaction as contrary to public policy (invalid transaction), as well as the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration and foreign courts judgments are «technical» cases brought in order to avoid the liability of a party against whom the decision was made, such an interpretation of the concept of «public policy» gives judges the opportunity to fully investigate, whether transactions or decisions in force violates public policy or the fundamental principles of justice and fairness of the state, without a statutory restriction on the concept of «public policy».