Arbitration clause in General Conditions of Business Transactions: current trends in international trade versus consumer arbitration
Keywords:
arbitration, arbitration clause, alternative dispute resolution, arbitration agreement, contract, general conditions, prorogation of jurisdiction, consumer.
Abstract
This paper shows the diverging tendencies in the understanding of the arbitration clause contained in the general conditions of business transactions (GCBT) in (international) commercial and consumer law. The results show that the reverse logic is currently present regarding the issue of the arbitration clause contained in the GCBT and the necessity for such an arbitration agreement to be contained in a separate and signed document. International commercial arbitration, encompassing both legal dogmatic and arbitration and court practice, has shown a tendency towards a more liberal and flexible understanding of the written form in the past several decades, in terms of the validity of the arbitration clause contained in the GCBT referred to in the underlying substantive contract. By contrast, in consumer law, there is a tendency for the arbitration clause contained in the GCBT, which has not been brought to attention, to be considered a null and void provision. Namely, it is required for the arbitration clause to be contained in a separate document signed by both parties. This points to the conclusion that special attention should be paid to the consumer law disputes that are to be resolved by arbitration, while court and arbitration practice in international commercial disputes lately records cases in which the court explicitly took the opposite position. Trader’s claims stating that he was not aware that the GCBT contained arbitration clause and that no attention was drawn to it, are considered unfounded by the court. Namely, the application of both GCBT and arbitration in international trade are considered ordinary nowadays.
References
1. Andrews, N. (2016). Arbitration and Contract Law: Common Law Perspectives. Springer
2. Berger, K. P. (2010). The Creeping Codification of the New Lex Mercatoria. Kluwer Law International.
3. Biard, A. (2019). Impact of Directive 2013/11/EU on Consumer ADR Quality: Evidence from France and the UK. Journal of Consumer Policy 42 (1), 109-147.
4. Bunni, N. (2005). The FIDIC Forms of Contract. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
5. Cortes, P. (ed.). (2016). The new regulatory framework for consumer dispute resolution. Oxford University Press.
6. Ivančević, K. (2013). Rešavanje potrošačkog spora pred arbitražom. u: Bourgoignie, T., Jovanić, T. (eds). Strengthening Consumer Protection in Serbia - Liber Amicorum Svetislav Taboroši. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, 268-269.
7. Ivančević, K. (2014). Uvod u potrošačko pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union.
8. Jovanović, M. (2017). Arbitrability of consumer disputes. In: Reshaping the boundaries of arbitrability: are we heading forward?. Belgrade: Permanent arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, 179-193.
9. Karamarković, L. (2004). Poravnanje i medijacija. Beograd: Fakultet za poslovno pravo
10. Knežević, G. (1989). Merodavno pravo za trgovački ugovor o međunarodnoj prodaji robe. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo.
11. Knežević, G. (1999). Međunarodna trgovačka arbitraža: osnovna pitanja i problemi. Beograd: Dosije i Savet projekta Konstituisanje Srbije kao pravne države.
12. Knežević, G., Pavić, V. (2010). Arbitraža i ADR. Beogad: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
13. Kunda, I. (2013). Ništetnost prorogacijske i arbitražne klauzule u potrošačkim ugovorima u praksi Suda EU-a. u: Tomljenović, V., Petrić, S., Mišćenić, E. (ur.). Nepoštene ugovorne odredbe: europski standardi i hrvatska provedba. Rijeka: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 258-275.
14. Matjaz, S.-K. (2018). Civil Procedure. in: Thommen, M. (ed). Introduction to Swiss Law. Berlin, Bern: Carl Grossmann Publishers, 352-367.
15. Miljković, M. (2007). Komentar Zakona o arbitraži. Beograd: Poslovni biro.
16. Mitrović, D. (glavni redaktor). (1982). Leksikon prava međunarodnih privrednih odnosa. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
17. Meškić, Z. (2015). Prorogacija nadležnosti u opštim uslovima potrošačkih ugovora. u: Aktualnosti građanskog i trgovačkog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse: zbornik radova trinaestog međunarodnog savjetovanja u Neumu. Mostar: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Mostaru, 323-335.
18. Nitrola, M., Tavartkiladze, B. (2017). Nonarbitrability: New Trends in Italian Doctrine. In: Reshaping the boundaries of arbitrability: are we heading forward?. Belgrade: Permanent arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, 93-102.
19. Perović, J. (2012). Standardne klauzule u međunarodnim privrednim ugovorima. Beograd: Centar za izdavačku delatnost Ekonomskog fakulteta u Beogradu.
20. Petersson, N. (2013). Legal Institutions and the World Economy, 1900-1930. u: Dejung, C., Petersson, N. (ed.), The Foundations of Worldwide Economic Integration: Power, Institutions, and Global Markets, 1850-1930, Cambridge Studies in the Emergence of Global Enterprise. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Petrović, M. (1996). Nemačko pravo o međunarodnoj trgovinskoj arbitraži. u: Mitrović, D. (red.). Međunarodna trgovinska arbitraža. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 76-90.
22. Petrović, M. (2015). Prorogacija nadležnosti suda za potrošačke sporove sa stranim elementom: rešenja prava EU i prava Srbije. Glasnik prava (3), 1-21.
23. Petrović Tomić, N. (2014). Rešavanje potrošačkih sporova pred arbitražom. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu (2), 86-114.
24. Pilar Perales Viscasillas, M. (2017). Some specific issues about arbitrability in Spain: back to the past?. In: Reshaping the boundaries of arbitrability: are we heading forward?. Belgrade: Permanent arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, 56-75.
25. Pisacane, G., Murphy, L., Zhang, C. (2016). Arbitration in China: Rules & Perspectives. Singapore: Springer.
26. Poznić, B. (1984). Opšti uslovi ugovora i nadležnost arbitraže. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu (5).
27. Poznić, B., Rakić-Vodinelić, V. (2010). Građansko procesno pravo. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
28. Reich, N. (2007). More clarity after ’Claro’? Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts as an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) mechanism for effective and speedy conflict resolution, or as ’deni de justice’. European Review of Contract Law 3 (1), 41-61.
29. Reich, N. (2015). Party autonomy and consumer arbitration in conflict: a “Trojan horse” in the access to justice in the E.U. ADR – Directive 2013/11?. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 4 (1), 290-332.
30. Sein, K. (2011). Protection of Consumers against Unfair Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses inJurisprudence of the European Court of Joustice. Juridica International (18).
31. Stanivuković, M. (2013). Arbitration – is it a viable option for resolution of consumer disputes in Serbia. u: Bourgoignie, T., Jovanić, T. (eds). Strengthening Consumer Protection in Serbia - Liber Amicorum Svetislav Taboroši. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, 227-247.
32. Tang, Z. (S.). (2014). Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law. London and New York: Routledge.
33. Trajković, M. (2000). Međunarodno arbitražno pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu i Udruženje pravnika Jugoslavije.
34. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2008). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amendments as adopted in 2006. Vienna: United Nations.
35. Varadi, T., Bordaš, B., Knežević, G. (2003). Međunarodno privatno pravo. Novi Sad: Forum.
36. Vasiljević, M. (2019). Arbitraža bez arbitražnog ugovora (direktnog ili indirektnog). Dvadeset sedmo savetovanje sudija privrednih sudova Republike Srbije. Beograd: Privredni apelacioni sud, 23-38.
37. Vilus, J. (2003). Sudsko i vansudsko rešavanje sporova potrošača po pravu Evropske unije. Pravo i privreda (1/4).
38. Vilus, J. (2003). Vansudsko rešavanje sporova potrošača. Evropsko zakonodavstvo (4).
39. Vukadinović-Marković, J. (2016). Arbitražna klauzula u opštim uslovima poslovanja: pitanje forme ili saglasnosti ugovornih strana. Pravni život (11).
Propisi:
1. Arbitration Act 1996, UK Legislation, dostupno na: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents
2. Pravilnik o Stalnoj arbitraži pri Privrednoj komori Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 101/16.
3. Pravilnik o Spoljnotrgovinskoj arbitraži pri Privrednoj komori Srbije, Sl. list SRJ, br. 52/97 i 64/2001 i Sl. glasnik RS, br. 74/2004.
4. Švajcarski Zakon o parničnom postupku, (pristup 26.7.2020.), dostupno na: https://www.swissarbitration.org/files/35/Swiss%20Domestic%20Arbitration%20Law/cpc_part_3_english.pdf
5. Uredba o ratifikaciji Evropske konvencije o međunarodnoj trgovinskoj arbitraži sa završnim aktom specijalnog sastanka punomoćnika, Sl. list SFRJ – Međunarodni ugovori i drugi sporazumi, br. 12/63.
6. Zakonik o građanskom postupku Nemačke iz 2005 sa poslednjim izmenama 2013, dostupno na: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html
7. Zakon o arbitraži, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 46/2006.
8. Zakon o arbitraži Republike Hrvatske, Narodne novine, br. 88/01.
9. Zakon o parničnom postupku, Sl. list SFRJ, br. 4/77, 36/77 - ispr., 6/80 - dr. zakon, 36/80, 43/82 - dr. zakon , 69/82 , 72/82 - ispr. dr. zakona, 58/84, 74/87, 57/89, 20/90, 27/90 i 35/91, Sl. list SRJ, br. 27/92, 31/93, 24/94, 12/98, 15/98 - ispr. i 3/2002 i Sl. glasnik RS, br. 125/2004 - dr. zakon.
10. Zakon o zaštiti potrošača, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 62/2014, 6/2016 – dr. zakon i 44/2018 – dr. zakon.
Internet izvori (istraživanja, strani propisi i sudska praksa):
1. Council Resolution of 25 May 2000 on a Community-wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes, OJ C 155, 6.6.2000, p. 1–2, dostupno na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32000Y0606%2801%29.
2. Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63–79, dostupna na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0011.
3. Evropski sud pravde se u slučaju C-165/05 Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0168&from=EN.
4. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0040
5. International Chamber of Commerce. (2020). ICC Dispute Resolution 2019 Statistics.
6. Mišljenje nezavisnog advokata Verice Trstenjak od 14. maja 2009. god. (Opinion of Advocate General Verica Trstenjak in Case 14.5.2009.) u predmetu C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL gegen Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira, dostupno na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:62008CC0040.
7. Quenn Mary University of London – School of International Arbitration. 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration. dostupno na: http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2018-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdf
8. Perović, J. (2017). Najopasnije su šampanj klauzule. Politika 22.07.2017. Dostupno na: http://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/385400/Ekonomija/Najopasnije-su-sampanj-klauzule.
9. Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 1–12, dostupno na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0524
2. Berger, K. P. (2010). The Creeping Codification of the New Lex Mercatoria. Kluwer Law International.
3. Biard, A. (2019). Impact of Directive 2013/11/EU on Consumer ADR Quality: Evidence from France and the UK. Journal of Consumer Policy 42 (1), 109-147.
4. Bunni, N. (2005). The FIDIC Forms of Contract. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
5. Cortes, P. (ed.). (2016). The new regulatory framework for consumer dispute resolution. Oxford University Press.
6. Ivančević, K. (2013). Rešavanje potrošačkog spora pred arbitražom. u: Bourgoignie, T., Jovanić, T. (eds). Strengthening Consumer Protection in Serbia - Liber Amicorum Svetislav Taboroši. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, 268-269.
7. Ivančević, K. (2014). Uvod u potrošačko pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union.
8. Jovanović, M. (2017). Arbitrability of consumer disputes. In: Reshaping the boundaries of arbitrability: are we heading forward?. Belgrade: Permanent arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, 179-193.
9. Karamarković, L. (2004). Poravnanje i medijacija. Beograd: Fakultet za poslovno pravo
10. Knežević, G. (1989). Merodavno pravo za trgovački ugovor o međunarodnoj prodaji robe. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo.
11. Knežević, G. (1999). Međunarodna trgovačka arbitraža: osnovna pitanja i problemi. Beograd: Dosije i Savet projekta Konstituisanje Srbije kao pravne države.
12. Knežević, G., Pavić, V. (2010). Arbitraža i ADR. Beogad: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
13. Kunda, I. (2013). Ništetnost prorogacijske i arbitražne klauzule u potrošačkim ugovorima u praksi Suda EU-a. u: Tomljenović, V., Petrić, S., Mišćenić, E. (ur.). Nepoštene ugovorne odredbe: europski standardi i hrvatska provedba. Rijeka: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 258-275.
14. Matjaz, S.-K. (2018). Civil Procedure. in: Thommen, M. (ed). Introduction to Swiss Law. Berlin, Bern: Carl Grossmann Publishers, 352-367.
15. Miljković, M. (2007). Komentar Zakona o arbitraži. Beograd: Poslovni biro.
16. Mitrović, D. (glavni redaktor). (1982). Leksikon prava međunarodnih privrednih odnosa. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
17. Meškić, Z. (2015). Prorogacija nadležnosti u opštim uslovima potrošačkih ugovora. u: Aktualnosti građanskog i trgovačkog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse: zbornik radova trinaestog međunarodnog savjetovanja u Neumu. Mostar: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Mostaru, 323-335.
18. Nitrola, M., Tavartkiladze, B. (2017). Nonarbitrability: New Trends in Italian Doctrine. In: Reshaping the boundaries of arbitrability: are we heading forward?. Belgrade: Permanent arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, 93-102.
19. Perović, J. (2012). Standardne klauzule u međunarodnim privrednim ugovorima. Beograd: Centar za izdavačku delatnost Ekonomskog fakulteta u Beogradu.
20. Petersson, N. (2013). Legal Institutions and the World Economy, 1900-1930. u: Dejung, C., Petersson, N. (ed.), The Foundations of Worldwide Economic Integration: Power, Institutions, and Global Markets, 1850-1930, Cambridge Studies in the Emergence of Global Enterprise. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Petrović, M. (1996). Nemačko pravo o međunarodnoj trgovinskoj arbitraži. u: Mitrović, D. (red.). Međunarodna trgovinska arbitraža. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 76-90.
22. Petrović, M. (2015). Prorogacija nadležnosti suda za potrošačke sporove sa stranim elementom: rešenja prava EU i prava Srbije. Glasnik prava (3), 1-21.
23. Petrović Tomić, N. (2014). Rešavanje potrošačkih sporova pred arbitražom. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu (2), 86-114.
24. Pilar Perales Viscasillas, M. (2017). Some specific issues about arbitrability in Spain: back to the past?. In: Reshaping the boundaries of arbitrability: are we heading forward?. Belgrade: Permanent arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, 56-75.
25. Pisacane, G., Murphy, L., Zhang, C. (2016). Arbitration in China: Rules & Perspectives. Singapore: Springer.
26. Poznić, B. (1984). Opšti uslovi ugovora i nadležnost arbitraže. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu (5).
27. Poznić, B., Rakić-Vodinelić, V. (2010). Građansko procesno pravo. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
28. Reich, N. (2007). More clarity after ’Claro’? Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts as an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) mechanism for effective and speedy conflict resolution, or as ’deni de justice’. European Review of Contract Law 3 (1), 41-61.
29. Reich, N. (2015). Party autonomy and consumer arbitration in conflict: a “Trojan horse” in the access to justice in the E.U. ADR – Directive 2013/11?. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 4 (1), 290-332.
30. Sein, K. (2011). Protection of Consumers against Unfair Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses inJurisprudence of the European Court of Joustice. Juridica International (18).
31. Stanivuković, M. (2013). Arbitration – is it a viable option for resolution of consumer disputes in Serbia. u: Bourgoignie, T., Jovanić, T. (eds). Strengthening Consumer Protection in Serbia - Liber Amicorum Svetislav Taboroši. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, 227-247.
32. Tang, Z. (S.). (2014). Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law. London and New York: Routledge.
33. Trajković, M. (2000). Međunarodno arbitražno pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu i Udruženje pravnika Jugoslavije.
34. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2008). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amendments as adopted in 2006. Vienna: United Nations.
35. Varadi, T., Bordaš, B., Knežević, G. (2003). Međunarodno privatno pravo. Novi Sad: Forum.
36. Vasiljević, M. (2019). Arbitraža bez arbitražnog ugovora (direktnog ili indirektnog). Dvadeset sedmo savetovanje sudija privrednih sudova Republike Srbije. Beograd: Privredni apelacioni sud, 23-38.
37. Vilus, J. (2003). Sudsko i vansudsko rešavanje sporova potrošača po pravu Evropske unije. Pravo i privreda (1/4).
38. Vilus, J. (2003). Vansudsko rešavanje sporova potrošača. Evropsko zakonodavstvo (4).
39. Vukadinović-Marković, J. (2016). Arbitražna klauzula u opštim uslovima poslovanja: pitanje forme ili saglasnosti ugovornih strana. Pravni život (11).
Propisi:
1. Arbitration Act 1996, UK Legislation, dostupno na: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents
2. Pravilnik o Stalnoj arbitraži pri Privrednoj komori Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 101/16.
3. Pravilnik o Spoljnotrgovinskoj arbitraži pri Privrednoj komori Srbije, Sl. list SRJ, br. 52/97 i 64/2001 i Sl. glasnik RS, br. 74/2004.
4. Švajcarski Zakon o parničnom postupku, (pristup 26.7.2020.), dostupno na: https://www.swissarbitration.org/files/35/Swiss%20Domestic%20Arbitration%20Law/cpc_part_3_english.pdf
5. Uredba o ratifikaciji Evropske konvencije o međunarodnoj trgovinskoj arbitraži sa završnim aktom specijalnog sastanka punomoćnika, Sl. list SFRJ – Međunarodni ugovori i drugi sporazumi, br. 12/63.
6. Zakonik o građanskom postupku Nemačke iz 2005 sa poslednjim izmenama 2013, dostupno na: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html
7. Zakon o arbitraži, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 46/2006.
8. Zakon o arbitraži Republike Hrvatske, Narodne novine, br. 88/01.
9. Zakon o parničnom postupku, Sl. list SFRJ, br. 4/77, 36/77 - ispr., 6/80 - dr. zakon, 36/80, 43/82 - dr. zakon , 69/82 , 72/82 - ispr. dr. zakona, 58/84, 74/87, 57/89, 20/90, 27/90 i 35/91, Sl. list SRJ, br. 27/92, 31/93, 24/94, 12/98, 15/98 - ispr. i 3/2002 i Sl. glasnik RS, br. 125/2004 - dr. zakon.
10. Zakon o zaštiti potrošača, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 62/2014, 6/2016 – dr. zakon i 44/2018 – dr. zakon.
Internet izvori (istraživanja, strani propisi i sudska praksa):
1. Council Resolution of 25 May 2000 on a Community-wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes, OJ C 155, 6.6.2000, p. 1–2, dostupno na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32000Y0606%2801%29.
2. Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63–79, dostupna na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0011.
3. Evropski sud pravde se u slučaju C-165/05 Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0168&from=EN.
4. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0040
5. International Chamber of Commerce. (2020). ICC Dispute Resolution 2019 Statistics.
6. Mišljenje nezavisnog advokata Verice Trstenjak od 14. maja 2009. god. (Opinion of Advocate General Verica Trstenjak in Case 14.5.2009.) u predmetu C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL gegen Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira, dostupno na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:62008CC0040.
7. Quenn Mary University of London – School of International Arbitration. 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration. dostupno na: http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2018-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdf
8. Perović, J. (2017). Najopasnije su šampanj klauzule. Politika 22.07.2017. Dostupno na: http://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/385400/Ekonomija/Najopasnije-su-sampanj-klauzule.
9. Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 1–12, dostupno na: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0524
Published
2020/11/10
Section
Originalni naučni rad
Autori koji objavljuju u ovom časopisu pristaju na sledeće uslove:
- Autori zadržavaju autorska prava i pružaju časopisu pravo prvog objavljivanja rada i licenciraju ga "Creative Commons Attribution licencom" koja omogućava drugima da dele rad, uz uslov navođenja autorstva i izvornog objavljivanja u ovom časopisu.
- Autori mogu izraditi zasebne, ugovorne aranžmane za neekskluzivnu distribuciju članka objavljenog u časopisu (npr. postavljanje u institucionalni repozitorijum ili objavljivanje u knjizi), uz navođenje da je članak izvorno objavljen u ovom časopisu.
- Autorima je dozvoljeno da postave objavljeni članak onlajn (npr. u institucionalni repozitorijum ili na svoju internet stranicu) pre ili tokom postupka prijave rukopisa, s obzirom da takav postupak može voditi produktivnoj razmeni ideja i ranijoj i većoj citiranosti objavljenog članka.