RAA40 Newsletter No 7 2017 RAA40 Newsletter No 6 2016 RAA40 Newsletter No 5 2015 RAA40 Newsletter No 4 2014 RAA40 Newsletter No 3 2014 (part 1) RAA40 Newsletter No 3 2014 (part 2) RAA40 Newsletter No 2 2014 RAA40 Newsletter No 1 2013 Acknowledgments RAA40 is a forum for the young arbitration practitioners in Russia […]
The international conference Russian Arbitration Day took place on 29 May in Moscow. The event focused on key issues concerning the development of international commercial arbitration on Post-Soviet territory. It was the second such conference held by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. A number […]
Earlier this year we covered a case, where the Russian courts refused to enforce an award citing lack of proper notice to the respondent. The courts agreed with the respondent that a person purporting to act on respondent’s behalf lacked the power to do so. The story was not over though as this week a […]
2013 was an important year for international arbitration in Russia. Numerous important court judgments were rendered by the higher courts. A large-scale and ground-breaking legislative reform is underway. Some new high profile arbitrations were commenced. We have selected and summarised the 10 most important events related to international arbitration last year. 1. Launch of legislative […]
Later this year the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court will hear an appeal in ENEL OGK-5 v CJSC ROS Postakva and Worley Parsons Europe Energy Services Ltd. The issues before the court are the arbitral tribunal’s power to assess evidence and the effect an alleged lack of jurisdiction over part of the dispute has on […]
Yesterday the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation affirmed relevant lower courts’ decisions to set aside a domestic arbitral award. It found that enforcement of an award requiring the respondent to pay penalty interest in the amount clearly exceeding the damages suffered by the claimant violates Russian public policy. While the […]
In a pending case Russian courts are looking at whether the arbitral tribunal may extend its jurisdiction to the City of Moscow on the basis of an arbitration clause in a contract to which a department of the city government is a party. In March 2013, the tribunal (Professor Sherstobitov (chair) and Professors Komarov and […]
The Federal Commercial Court for the Moscow Circuit issued an important decision last Wednesday confirming the enforcement of a Swiss Rules arbitration order terminating arbitration proceedings. The court confirmed that tribunal decisions other than awards may be enforced in Russia. It also confirmed the lower court’s finding that the parties may modify arbitration clauses by […]
Last week ICSID released a redacted version of a 2010 award in Liman Caspian Oil B.V. and NCL Dutch Investment B.V. v. Kazakhstan. While both the facts of the case and the parties’ positions have been redacted, the remaining parts of the award provide illuminating analysis of such issues as legality of the investment as a […]
On 16 July the Supreme Commercial Court will consider whether an arbitration clause which consists of a reference to the ICC Rules of Arbitration is enforceable. The lower courts ruled that it was not, finding that it was not specific enough, with parties failing to agree on an institution to administer the arbitration. At first […]
In April, the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow Circuit faced two opportunities to address the implications of foreign set aside proceedings on the enforcement of an award in the Russian Federation. In the first case, it ruled that a party’s failure to raise an objection to the award in the set aside proceedings precluded […]
On 8 April 2013, the tribunal rendered an award in Arif v Moldova, the first ICSID arbitration against Moldova, which commenced several months after it had ratified the ICSID Convention. The tribunal (Cremades, Hanotiau, Knieper) rejected the majority of the investor’s claims, but found that Moldova had in one instance violated the obligation to provide fair […]
On 12 March 2013 a Russian court held that an award rendered in Russia may not be set aside if the parties have agreed that it will be final and have waived any recourse against it. The Federal Commercial Court for the Moscow Circuit ruled that in such cases the only remedy available to the […]
The continuing financial instability worldwide has its impact on all areas law, including arbitration. The number of cases where insolvent parties are involved in arbitration or have entered into agreements containing arbitration clauses is rising and has over the past year generated significant jurisprudence of the Russian courts. Notably, the Supreme Commercial Court in a […]
An international conference “Russia in the World Trade Organization: New Tools to Protect Business” took place at the World Trade Centre in Moscow on October 24, 2012. The conference was held by ICC Russia and law firm Muranov Chernyakov & Partners. Russia acceded to the WTO on August 22, 2012. The accession was preceded by the relevant decree of the […]
The Russian Supreme Commercial Court has held that disputes arising out of investment agreements with Russian authorities are not arbitrable at least for the purposes of domestic arbitration. The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts refusing the enforcement of a domestic arbitral award in a dispute between a private investor and a Russian […]
Can an essentially domestic dispute be referred to an international arbitral tribunal sitting outside of the Russian Federation? Can an “international” dispute be resolved by a domestic arbitral tribunal? These questions may be troubling for a practitioner drafting an arbitration clause in a contract. This is especially true because figuring out whether the dispute is […]
The CIS Arbitration Forum recently reported on a decision of the Moscow Circuit Commercial Court to enforce a judgment of the English High Court on the basis of reciprocity. We noted then that there was a growing trend of recognition of foreign court judgments on the basis of reciprocity (i.e. in the absence of a bilateral treaty). […]
According to the Kazakh Ministry of Justice, a foreign company which initiated a dispute against Kazakhstan has failed to establish that it was controlled by a national of a state party to the ICSID Convention. The ICSID tribunal in Caratube International Oil Company v Kazakhstan decided that the claim was brought by a Kazakh company which failed […]
The Russian courts have sent a state establishment and several state agencies to arbitration to have their claim for termination of a contract with a German contractor resolved pursuant to the agreed dispute resolution procedure (case reference No. А40-106514/2011). The claimants argued in both the Moscow Commercial Court and the Ninth Appellate Commercial Court that […]
Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia remains a grey area, because according to the Arbitrazh Procedure Code foreign judgments may be enforced on the basis of a federal law or an international treaty. There is no generally applicable law providing for the enforcement of foreign judgments and there are few international treaties (particularly […]
Up until now optional arbitration clauses have come before Russian commercial courts only indirectly, in cases where lenders have chosen to exercise their option to bring claims before Russian state courts. In a line of cases decided by the Moscow Circuit Commercial Court the validity of such an option was upheld and it was held […]
Arbitration clauses are usually treated as one of the boilerplate terms of commercial contracts. They are frequently formulated off the top of one’s head and though major arbitration centres recommend standard clauses they are not always used. In a decision rendered on 13 March 2012 the Moscow Circuit Commercial Court confirmed the lower court’s decision […]
It seems that in at least one respect Russian courts are now more arbitration-friendly than courts in many other countries. In a string of cases decided during 2011 the Supreme Commercial Court held that enforcement of an arbitral award may not be refused on the basis of a tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction if the award was […]
This summer an UNCITRAL tribunal sitting in Stockholm held that it had no jurisdiction over a case submitted by Italian company Cesare Galdabini under Italy-Russian Federation BIT. According to media reports the claim arose out Russian Federation refusal to settle a debt owed for EUR 278’000 worth of equipment, which Galdabini supplied in the end […]
It is reported that in TS Investment Corp v. Republic of Armenia, LCIA tribunal found in favor of the Respondent rejecting investor’s claims. TS Investment Corp asserted claims based on breach of a contract between the parties as well as US-Armenia BIT. The arbitration centered around TS’s investment into a tire plant in Yerevan, Armenia, […]
Domestic arbitration institutions established by various commercial entities have become widespread in the Russian Federation. Their existence and perceived lack of impartiality have long been criticized by many. They were also presented as an example of why arbitration should not be used to resolve private disputes. The situation is particularly problematic where the rules of […]
Power of attorney authorizing the representative to sign a commercial contract is sufficient for such representative to sign a contract containing an arbitration clause. In a recently published decision the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation confirmed that the provision of Article 62 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code requiring that for […]
In a recently published award a tribunal found that the windfall profit tax introduced by Mongolia as well as introduction of a penalty for exceeding the limit on employment of foreign nationals were compatible with the FET standard established by the Mongolia-Russia BIT. On the other hand, the tribunal found that the conduct of Mongolian […]
In a recently published award in GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, an ICSID Tribunal found that an arbitral award for the recovery of money (due under an agreement treated as an investment) does not in itself constitute an investment (para 162). The Tribunal further held that if failure to enforce an award may constitute expropriation, […]
In a recently published decision, the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court (“SC”) held that provisional awards of arbitral tribunals are not enforceable in the Russian Federation. The SC said Russian law only provides for enforcement of awards that are final and actually resolve the substance of the dispute. Facts of the case Living […]
A set of rules aimed at regulating mediation in the Russian Federation is due to enter into force on 1 January 2011. It includes Federal Law On Alternative Procedure of Dispute Settlement with Participation of Mediator (Mediation Procedure) and a separate set of amendments to the Russian procedural laws designed to incorporate mediation into the […]
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.