Court of Cassation - Civil & Trade Division - Number: 85 /2010

Ruling Summary Record: The Court: Court of Cassation Circuit: Civil & Trade Division Number: 85Year: 2010Session Date: 6/1/2010
The Court Panel :
طباعة
 
Sitting of 1/6/2010
Contestation No. 85 of 2010 civil discrimination ) First Circle (
 
1. Jurisdiction of the Court does not include reviewing the contestations referred to it about the awards of the arbitration committee for the resolution of disputes related to the transactions that take place in Doha Stock Market.

Originally, the courts are the authority that possess the right to settle disputes, but there is nothing to preclude the legislature from preventing the court from reviewing any specific dispute and to assign settlement of the said dispute to any other party and decide the procedures to be followed in referring the dispute to the said party as well as the procedures for contestation of the rulings and decisions issued from it. The objective of Article 19 of Law No. 14 of 1995 regarding the establishment of Doha Stock Market, and Article 148 of Decision No. 10 of 1999 of the Minister of Finance, Economy and Commerce regarding the issue of bylaws for Doha Stock Market pursuant to this Law; and based on the ruling of this court, the legislature and for reasons considered by the Minister, is to establish an exceptional path to resolve the disputes relating to the transactions that take place in the Market and, accordingly, he assigned the power of settlement of such disputes to an administrative body whose decisions are considered final and not subject to contestation, which means that the jurisdiction of the courts does not include reviewing contestations related to these decisions.
 
2. In view of the compulsory competence and composition of the arbitration committee for the settlement of disputes related to the transactions taking place in the Market, it is no more than a jury assigned legal powers to settle disputes within its area of specialization and to issue binding decisions not subject to contestation by any of the recognized contestation procedures. This Jury is not mixed with the voluntary arbitration bodies mentioned in Chapter 13 of the Civil and Commercial Prosecutions Law No. 13 of 1990, which pass judgments that may be contested accordance with the provisions of the said Law.
This opinion will not be changed if the legislator has considered the Jury to which he has assigned the power of settlement of disputes as an arbitration committee. The aforementioned arbitration committee, in view of its compulsory competence and composition, is nothing but a jury assigned legal powers to settle disputes within its area of specialization and to issue binding decision not subject to contestation by any of the recognized contestation procedures. Although the legislator has purposely cancelled Law No. 14 of 1995 by the establishment of Doha Stock Market and the bylaws and decisions implementing the said law by issuing Law No. 33 of 2005, which is amended by Law No. 14 of 2007 and Law No. 10 of 2009, but he has stipulated in Article 41 of this law that the arbitration and disciplinary committees mentioned in Law No. 14 of 1995 referred to above shall continue to review the arbitrations, violations and grievances referred to them in accordance with the applicable procedures and rules until the regulations related to this matter are issued and alternative committees are set up by the Jury and commence their tasks, which means that the legislator has enjoined the application of  provisions of Law No. 14 of 1995 and the decisions taken related to the same regarding the arbitration and disciplinary committees until the issuance of arbitration and disciplinary regulations and until the Authority of Qatar Stock Markets sets up new alternative committees in place of the existing arbitration and disciplinary committees that have been established according to the provisions of the repealed Law No. 14 of 1995, and until the new committees exercise their tasks.
The papers/documents do not include any indication related to the establishment of alternative arbitration committees in place of the arbitration committee that has been established under Law No. 14 of 1995, which was the committee that issued the contested decision as being the body that Law No. 33 of 2005, as amended, still assigns it the review of arbitrations pursuant to the rules and procedures applicable in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 14 of 1995 and that decisions have been taken to prohibit contestation of the said committee as mentioned before. Accordingly, if the contested judgment had ruled that the contestation of the aforementioned award of the arbitration committee is inadmissible, then it has applied the true spirit of the law and the appeal of its rejection shall be unfounded.
 
Merits of the case
 
On 15/4/2010 a contestation by cassation was filed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal issued on 17/2/2010 in the appeals No. 1338 and 1367/2009.  On 20/4/2010 the appellee was informed of the contestation note. On 29/4/2010 the appellee delivered a pleading note supported by documents in which he requested rejection of the contestation. In the hearing of 4/5/2010 the contestation was produced to the Court in the counseling room and it agreed to a plea hearing. The case was heard on 18/5/2010 before this Circle on the basis of the records available in the hearing report, and the attorney for the appellee adhered to what he had stated in his pleading note. The Court then postponed the ruling to today’s sitting.

The Court

After review of the documents and listening to the report read by the presiding judge, and after prosecution and deliberation;
 
Whereas the contestation has fulfilled its procedural forms;
The facts as shown from the contested ruling and all the papers may be summarized as follows:
 
The appellee submitted an application on 1/6/2009 to the investigation body in Doha Stock Market requesting that the contestant be ordered to pay compensation for a mistake attributed to the contestant while dealing with her. The said body referred the application to the internal arbitration committee in the Market, and after the committee issued its award it was appealed by the contester under No. 1338 of 2009. The appellee also contested the award under No. 1367 of 2009. The court combined the two appeals and ruled them both inadmissible in its judgment on 17/2/2010. The contester challenged this ruling through cassation and the contestation was referred to this court in the counseling room for review.
 
The contestation is based on the assertion that the contested judgment has violated the provisions of Article 205 of the Civil and Commercial Prosecutions Law which allows contestation by appealing court judgments, and on the assertion that the bylaws of Doha Stock Market have prohibited contestation of the awards of the arbitration committee, which is responsible for the settlement of disputes related to the transactions taking place in the Market. However, the bylaws should not approve a rule that deviates from any provision related to the same in the law. The contestant has also contested the provision of Article 19 of Law No. 14 of 1995 that does not prohibit contestation of the awards of the arbitration committee, which makes the judgment defective and necessitates cassation.
 
This reasoning is not correct because the court is the original authority possessing the right to settle disputes but there is nothing to preclude the legislature from preventing the court from reviewing any specific dispute and to assign settlement of the said dispute to any other party and to decide the procedures to be followed in referring the dispute to the said party as well as the procedures for contestation of the rulings and decisions issued by it. The objective of Articles 19 of Law No. 14 of 1995 related to the establishment of Doha Stock Market, and Article 148 of Decision No. 10 of 1999 of the Minister of Finance, Economy and Commerce related to the issue of bylaws for Doha Stock market pursuant to this Law; and based on the ruling of this court, the legislature and for reasons considered by the Minister, is to establish an exceptional path to resolve the disputes relating to the transactions that take place in the market and, accordingly, he assigned the power of settlement of such disputes to an administrative body whose decisions are final and not subject to contestation, which means that the jurisdiction of the courts does not include reviewing the contestations referred to them related to these decisions.
 
This opinion will not be changed if the legislator has considered the Jury to which he has assigned the power of settlement of disputes as an arbitration committee. The aforementioned arbitration committee, in view of its compulsory competence and composition, is nothing but a jury assigned legal powers to settle disputes within its area of specialization and to issue binding decision not subject to contestation by any of the recognized contestation procedures. Although the legislator has purposely cancelled Law No. 14 of 1995 by the establishment of Doha Stock Market and the bylaws and decisions implementing the said law by issuing Law No. 33 of 2005, which is amended by Law No. 14 of 2007 and Law No. 10 of 2009, but he has stipulated in Article 41 of this law that the arbitration and disciplinary committees mentioned in Law No. 14 of 1995 referred to above shall continue to review the arbitrations, violations and grievances referred to them in accordance with the applicable procedures and rules until the regulations related to this matter are issued and alternative committees are set up by the Jury and commence their tasks, which means that the legislator has enjoined the application of  provisions of Law No. 14 of 1995 and the decisions taken related to the same regarding the arbitration and disciplinary committees until the issuance of arbitration and disciplinary regulations and until the Authority of Qatar Stock Markets sets up new alternative committees in place of the existing arbitration and disciplinary committees that have been established according to the provisions of the repealed Law No. 14 of 1995, and until the new committees exercise their tasks. The papers/documents do not include any indication related to the establishment of alternative arbitration committees in place of the arbitration committee that has been established under Law No. 14 of 1995, which was the committee that issued the contested decision as being the body that Law No. 33 of 2005, as amended, still assigns it the review of arbitrations pursuant to the rules and procedures applicable in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 14 of 1995 and that decisions have been taken to prohibit contestation of the said committee as mentioned before
 
Accordingly, if the contested judgment had ruled that the contestation of the aforementioned award of the arbitration committee is inadmissible, then it has applied the true spirit of the law and the appeal of its rejection shall be unfounded.
 
Therefore, the court rejected the contestation and obligated the contestant to bear the costs and ordered confiscation of the bail.