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.
Continue reading “Russian Disputes Go Online”
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.
Continue reading “Russian proposals on domestic arbitration”
The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards has traditionally been applied very narrowly, for example, where a failure to vacate the award would violate the due process rights of the participants. However a recent case illustrates the contrasting approaches of the Swedish and Russian courts in this regard. In a recently published article I discuss both the Swedish and Russian court rulings and consider the implications for both freedom of contract and arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in each jurisdiction.
Continue reading “The Swedish and Russian approach to public policy: One case, two opinions”
In June 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin unexpectedly announced the creation of a new ’super’ Russian Supreme Court that would merge the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court and the Supreme Court. In this article, Mikhail Samoylov, senior associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law, discusses some of the features of this notable development.
Continue reading “Commercial litigation under the reformed Russian Supreme Court—what you need to know”
The Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court of Russia clarified recently whether or not a notification of arbitration is effective if it is received by a parent company rather than a subsidiary company who is the proper party to the arbitral proceedings.
Background and relevant facts
Autorobot-Strefa Sp. z o.o. (Poland) entered into a contract with Sollers-Elabuga LLC (Russia) for the development, manufacturing and supply of automobile equipment. The contract included a LCIA arbitration clause and London was the seat of arbitration.
Continue reading “Effective notification of Russian participants in international arbitration (Autorobot v Sollers-Elabuga)”
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”
Corruption has been a feature of human existence for thousands of years; it is considered <<an insidious plague>> (Kofi A. Annan), which has a destructive impact on both states and societies. Unfortunately, both international commercial arbitration and Russian domestic arbitration can be tainted by corruption.
On 2 June 2014, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation announced draft amendments to the Criminal Code of Russia, which are designed to combat bribery of domestic arbitrators. Mikhail Samoylov, Senior Associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law and Lexis®PSL Arbitration contributor, discusses this latest development.
Continue reading “A step in the right direction – Russia’s proposed regulation of bribery in arbitration”
On 24 April 2014, the Russian Arbitration Association (RAA) held a conference entitled, ’Future for arbitration in Russia’. The speakers, and those attending, attempted to answer the question whether or not there is a future for arbitration in Russia or whether that time has been lost forever.
The conference hosted more than 100 delegates amongst whom were representatives of the Ministry of Justice of Russia (the Russian MoJ), the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court of Russia, the business community, the leading international arbitral institutions (LCIA, SCC, VIAC, ICDR, PCA, DIS, ICAC, etc.) and the legal community. Mikhail Samoylov, Senior Associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law and Lexis®PSL Arbitration contributor, discusses the events of the conference.
Continue reading “The future for arbitration in Russia”
It is accepted that the impartiality and independence of arbitrators are cornerstones of arbitration. Pursuant to art 12(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law), any arbitrator may be challenged if there are circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence.
Many jurisdictions, including Russia, have adopted provisions based on art 12(1) in their domestic arbitration law. Unfortunately, the Model Law and Russian law are silent on the independence of arbitral institutions in general and, as a result, many Russian domestic disputes are resolved by arbitral institutions affiliated with only one of the parties to the dispute, which tends to be party with the greatest commercial power.
Continue reading “Impartiality and independence of party-affiliated arbitral institutions in Russia”
Last year, the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court of Russia upheld a pathological arbitration clause that, although specifying that the parties’ disputes were to be resolved pursuant to the ICC Arbitration Rules, was silent on the parties’ choice of administering institution. In his latest article, Mikhail Samoylov discusses the court’s decision and its implications.
Continue reading “Supreme Arbitrazh Court upholds pathological arbitration clause”