On 06 June 2015, the Moscow Arbitrazh court (a state court) published its decision in Kyrgyzstan v Lee John Bek case regarding the issue of challenging of the arbitral award on 13.11.2013 rendered by the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry (case А40-19518/14).
On 25 May 2015, the Moscow Arbitrazh court (a state court) published its decision on Kyrgyzstan v Stans Energy Corp case regarding the issue of challenging of the arbitral award on 30.06.2014 (case A40-64831/2014).
A quick retrospective: Kyrgyzstan sought the annulment of the arbitral award, but the Moscow Arbitrazh Court refused the motion (the ruling on 08.07.2014). Then, the CIS Economic Court reversed its decision regarding the interpretation of article 11 of the Convention on 23.09.2014 (case No 01-1/1-14). The court ruled that article 11 of the Convention applied only if the parties concluded an arbitration agreement and as the result, the Moscow court of cassation overturned the ruling of 08.07.2014. The court of cassation ordered to review case A40-64831/2014.
Although Kyrgyzstan v. Stans Energy Corp is known as an investment arbitration case having been heard by the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) court on the issue of setting aside the arbitral award there is something else interesting – on 12 March 2015 the court refused the motion on anti-enforcement injunctions in the case.
Recently I have published an article concerning the issue of the competence of arbitral tribunals under the Moscow Convention on protection of the rights of the investor. Briefly the cases against Kyrgyzstan were brought before the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry under article 11 of the Convention. The claimant’s reliance on the clause to find the tribunal’s competence. Kyrgyzstan asserted that article 11 of the Convention contains an ‘open offer’ and if Kyrgyzstan had accepted it the arbitration agreement would have been concluded.
In the recent Russian cases Kyrgzstan v Lee John Bek and Kyrgyzstan v Stans Energy Corp the claimant State sought the revision of an arbitral tribunal’s interim award on grounds that it lacked competence. Although the Moscow Arbitrazh Court rendered two decisions (on 24 June 2014 in Lee John Bek and on 8 July 2014 in Stans Energy Corp) which confronted the issue of whether or not the arbitrators had competence to hear the disputes, the position of the court raised more questions on this issue than there were before. Mikhail Samoylov, Senior Associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law and Leixs®PSL Arbitration contributor discusses the decisions Continue reading “Russia: competence and the Convention on Protection of the Rights of the Investor”