Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in the Russian Federation

The Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation is the court of final instance in commercial disputes in Russia.

The said Temporary Regulation ceased its action with the adoption of the Federal Law of July 24th, 2002 №102-FZ On tertiary courts in Russia Federation.

In 2012 State Arbitration Courts received about 1,5 million claims, i.e., 16% more than in 2011. In 31 regions a judge in the court of the first instance had to resolve about 40–60 claims per month and in 11 regions this figure is 80–120 claims per month (the figures are taken from the interview of the Head of the Supreme State Arbitration Court A. Ivanov to the Russian Rossiyskaya Gazeta see: Российская газета, 26.04.2013).

The reforms are aimed at the unification of state courts (both the courts of general jurisdiction and state arbitration courts) in one system under the Supreme Court of the Russia Federation. They started with the political declaration made by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, at the Petersburg Economic Forum 2013, which sounded quite inspiring. The President spoke about the necessity of uniting the state arbitration courts and civil courts within one system, which should put an end to the existing jurisdictional dichotomy. Following President Putin’s declaration, several important acts were enacted on February 5^th, 2014 and came into force on August 6^th, 2014. As a result, the Constitutional Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Arbitration were united, while the lower courts remain separate: state arbitration courts and civil courts of “general jurisdiction.” An issue that needs to be addressed before the courts of lower jurisdiction are united is the need of a single procedural code which would substitute both the Arbitration Procedural Code and the Civil Procedural Code. A working group of leading lawyers has been set up and is working on this.

See Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 10 августа 1960 г. «О ратификации Конвенции о признании и исполнении иностранных арбитражных решений»

The Commission was created by the Regulation of CEC (Central Executive Committee) and SPK (Soviet of Peoples Commissars) of June 17th, 1932 №281 “On the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission at the All-Union Chamber of Commerce.” In Russian: ПОстАнОвление ЦИК и СНК От 17 июня 1932 №281 «О внешне-тОргОвОй АрбитрАжнОй КОМиссии При ВсесОюзнОй тОргОвОй ПАлАте».

МеждунАрОдный КОММерчесКий АрбитрАж: ОПыт ОтечественнОгО регулирОвАния и сАМОрегулирОвАния. 80 лет МКАС При ТПП РФ. СбОрниК избрАнных нАучных, нОрМАтивных, Архивных, АнАлитичесКих и иных МАтериАлОв, Т.1, М, 2012, С.30

See http://www.tpprf-mkac.ru/

Official publication of the Law is: ЗАКОн РОссийсКОй ФедерАции От 07.07.1993№5338-I «О МеждунАрОднОМ КОММерчесКОМ АрбитрАже» // ВедОМОсти СНД и ВС РФ, 1993, №32, Ст.1240

Official publication: ФедерАльный зАКОн От 24 июля 2002 г.№102-ФЗ «О третейсКих судАх в РОссийсКОй ФедерАции» // СЗ РФ, 2002, №30, Ст.3019

Official publication: ФедерАльный зАКОн От 9 июля 1999 г. №160-ФЗ «Об инОстрАнных инвестициях в РОссийсКОй ФедерАции» // СЗ РФ, 1999, №28, Ст.3493

Петросян Р.А. Применение Московской конвенции 1972 г. в современных условиях // Сборник информационных материалов «Право и арбитражная практика», Выпуск 1, М:МКАС, 1997, с.15-30

The Russian Federation signed the Moscow Convention but did not ratified it. Thus, the Moscow Convention did not come into force in Russia.

Letter №OM-37 of the Supreme Arbitration Court of 1996.

Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation,PCA Case No.AA 226, UNCITRAL at http://​italaw.​com/​cases/​544), last access on June 30th 2013.

The materials of the case were published; see Вестник международного коммерческого арбитража, 2011, №2, с.202-225

In the award N252/2010, the ICAC also referred to its previous practice connected with the alternative arbitration clauses: the awards N305/1998 of January 31; N280/100 of June 13 200; N41/2001 of February 28, 2002; N 280/1999 of November 14 2001; N2/2001 of May20 2003; N 138/2002 of November 12, 2004; N174/2003 of November 11 2009.

see ВестниК МеждунАрОднОгО КОММерчесКОгО АрбитрАжА, 2011, №2, с. 219

See reference 17.

P Nacimiento and A Barnashov, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Russia’ (2010, v.27.3) Journal of International Arbitration 299, referring to Moscow District Court of April 11^th, 1997, in Sokolf Star Shipping Co. Inc. v GPVO Technopromexport, XXIII YB. COMM.ARB. 742 (1998).

See for example the recent interview of Andrei Klishas, the Chairman of the Committee of the Soviet Federation (the Upper Chamber of the Russian Parliament) on the Constitutional Legislation, Legal and Judicial Questions and the Development of the Civil Society, who mentioned the hyper-activity of the State Duma (during the spring Session of 2013 Duma (the Lower Chamber) has adopted 259 Legislative acts). This amount includes not only new acts but also amendments to the newly adopted laws (including laws adopted in the same session). That proves that the legal system in general is in the process of a “start-up” and development. This is true for the judicial system which is still under development.

See note 4

The Resolution of the Constitutional Court itself in English as well as the comments by B.Korabelnikov and A.Muranov (both in Russian) were published in ВестниК МеждунАрОднОгО КОММерчесКОгО АрбитрАжА; see: ВестниК МКА, № 2, 2011, С.226-278;

See Y Chernych, ‘Arbitrability of Corporate Disputes in Ukraine’ (2009, v26.5) Journal of International Arbitration 745-749; in Ukraine, first Recommendations on application of the legislation in corporate relations of the High Commercial Court and the adoption of the Law №1076-VI of March 5^th , 2009 made non-arbitrable corporate disputes.

See footnote 36 below.

See: ХОдыКин Р.А. АнтиисКОвые ОбесПечительные Меры в цивилистичесКОМ ПрОцессе в МеждунАрОднОМ АрбитрАже // ВОПрОсы МеждунАрОднОгО чАстнОгО, срАвнительнОгО и грАждАнсКОгО ПрАвА, МеждунАрОднОгО КОММерчесКОгО АрбитрАжА: Liber amicorum в честь А.А.КОстинА, О.Н.ЗиМенКОвОй, Н.Г.ЕлисеевА, М:СтАтут, 2013, С. 274-298, нА с.287-288; МурАнОв А.И. ПрОеКты МинюстА ПытАются сделАть вАжный шАг в стОрОну фОрМирОвАния в РОссии Обществ АрбитрАжных ПрОфессиОнАлОв // ЗАКОн, 2014, №4, С.48-49; Куделич Е.А. АрбитрАбильнОсть: в ПОисКАх бАлАнсА Между чАстнОй АвтОнОМией и ПубличныМ ПОрядКОМ // ЗАКОн, 2014, №4, с.103; КОнОвАлОвА Н.В., АгАлыдОвА М.В. АрбитрАбильнОсть сПОрОв из АКциОнерных сОглАшений //ЗАКОн, 2014, №4, с.112-113. It should be mentioned that R.Chodykin (Р.ХОдыКин), understands an application for the enforcement of the ICAC award to a foreign state court as an example of preliminary measures securing the arbitration claim. That was not completely correct from our point of view. Besides he wrote that the foreign satisfied the claim and referred to Yukos case decision, which as far as we know were rejected either. The R.Chodykin’s positions needs to be checked up we hope we would be able to find out the truth and provide with the final information.

See A J van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia. Case Comment on Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, April 28, 2009’ (2010, v. 27.2) Journal of International Arbitration 179-198; A J van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia. Case Comment of Dutch Supreme Court, June 25, 2010’ (2011, v. 28.6) Journal of International Arbitration 617-642

See above footnote 30.

See footnote.