Since 2013 I have had a number publications in English. I have decided to collect them in the one current blog for conveniece of the readers. The blog dedicated to the following areas of law: 1) Dispute resolution (both litigation and international (domestic) arbitration). 2) Responsibility of judges in Russia; 3) Compliance. It is covered by Kristina Furlet.
If you have any questions please, do not hesitate to contact us.
Happy to share my first contribution to Yearbook on Commercial Arbitration. Brandford LLC v. SL Graphika LLC (А31-3491/2014) might be interesting to those who seeks the enforcement and recognition of an arbitral award rendered in a CIS country. Russian courts reminded that the 1992 Kiev Treaty on the Manner of Resolving Disputes in the Area of Commercial Activity does not apply to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
The right to be heard in adversarial proceedings in international commercial arbitration has its own scope and limitations. In a recent decision of a Russian state court, the Arbitrazh Court of the Omsk region clarifies it.
A court refuses to enforce a domestic arbitral award if a party to arbitration has been deprived its right to nominate an arbitrator since the procedure of appointment under the arbitration rules had been violated (case А56-24342/2015). The framework of the case is a Russian domestic arbitration.
Since 2014, when economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia, a number of questions have arisen in respect of the alleged impact of sanctions on commercial arbitration. Moreover, it has been assumed that sanctions might have changed the attitude of the Russian lawyers in respect of some arbitral institutions.
Arbitration analysis: The Russian Arbitration Association (RAA), a non-commercial organisation created in 2013, has adopted the RAA Online Arbitrations Rules (the Rules), which came into force on 1 October 2015. Mikhail Samoylov, LLM candidate in International Dispute Settlement (MIDS), discusses the development.
The outcome of a complex and an expensive arbitral proceeding might be destroyed due to shareholders derivative actions of a loosing party. Whether a shareholder is bound by an arbitration agreement? The answer is done on my post in respect of Russian perspective.
I hope the topic would be useful to everyone who deals with Russian entities.
The issue of a unilateral (optional, alternative, hybrid) arbitration clause is highly controversial in commercial arbitration. The approach to these clauses varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In 2012, the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia (a state court), in Russian Telephone Company v. Sony Ericsson, declared a unilateral arbitration clause invalid. The decision attracted attention of arbitration participants both in Russia and abroad.
On 7 May 2015 the Russian Government proposed a draft new law, the law on domestic arbitration in Russian Federation (the draft law), to the State Duma (the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia (legislature)). Domestic Arbitration is defined as an arbitration relating to a dispute arising out of legal relationship whether contractual or not, where none of the parties is:
an in individual who is a nationality of, or habitually resident in, any country other than Russia; or
a body corporate which is incorporated in, or whose central control and management is exercised in, a state other than Russia, and
the seat of the arbitration is in the Russian Federation.