• Благотворительный фонд Весна в сердце




Архив для категории 'In English'

Russia: Courts are ordering companies to adopt compliance programs


Corruption is one of the most problematic factors for doing business in Russia. It’s clear the country must take decisive steps to combat this plague. While there’s plenty to do and progress has been slow, there are also some signs of progress.

(далее…)


Архив для категории 'In English'

Russia: No assets, No recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award


Background & court’s opinion: The claimant (Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, USA) sought the recognition and enforcement the arbitral award rendered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) against Ukranafta (Ukraine).

The jurisdiction of a Russian court was based on the claimant’s allegation that the defendant has assets in Russia. On the contrary, the defendant objected arguing that it has no any asset in Russia.

The Arbitrazh Court of the Kaliningrad region, relying on art 150 (1)(1) of the Commercial Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, decided to terminate proceedings because the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case due to there is no evidence that the defendant has any asset in Russia (the ruling dated 29 January 2014).

The Supreme Court’s decision: The High Court fully upheld this ruling (the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 14 October 2014. Case А21-8191/2013).


Архив для категории 'In English'

Russia: The High court confirms the concept of the separability of an arbitration agreement


Background & court’s opinion: The claimant challenged an arbitration clause alleging the following: the arbitration agreement (clause) is contrary to the concept of the impartiality and independence of arbitrators because the arbitration tribunal, which the parties had chosen as forum for dispute resolution arising from the contract, is affiliated with one of the parties of the contract. In Russian this concept is based on the previous decisions of the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court that if an arbitral tribunal is affiliated with a party of the arbitration hence any arbitration proceedings between these parties before such arbitral tribunal is not comply with fair and equitable consideration of a case (for more information see: Mikhail Samoylov, ‘Impartiality and independence of party-affiliated arbitral institutions in Russia). The court ruled in favor of the claimant.

The Supreme Court`s decision: The Supreme Court of Russia upheld the ruling of the court. Moreover, the Higher court inter alia confirmed the separability presumption of an arbitration agreement, namely, both the main contract and the arbitration clause (agreement) are two independent civil contracts (The decision of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 07 October 2014. Case А63-1982/2013).

P.S. On 28 November 2014 The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has pronounced the judgement on constitutionality of certain requirements for the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. The judgement would have effect on mentioned above the practice the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court. The analysis of the judgement of the Constitutional Court would be done later.


Архив для категории 'In English'

Russia: a fair trial in domestic arbitration is the fundamental right


Background & court’s opinion: The claimant challenged a domestic arbitral award dated 21.12.2005. The claimant indicated the following arguments: 1) the arbitration agreement was not concluded; 2) the claimant was not notified on the arbitration; 3) He got both the information about the arbitration and the arbitral award only in 2008.

The court dismissed the appeal on the ruling dated 10.06.2009. The further courts` tiers upheld the ruling. The court grounded its ruling by missing the period of limitation because the claimant got the information on 16.08.2008 but the appeal was filed in the court on 02.12.2008 (in accordance with the Commercial Procedural code of Russia the period of limitation is 3 months).

Then the claimant challenged the ruling due to newly discovered facts: 1) the forgery of the arbitration agreement; 2) the forgery of the notification on the arbitration. The claimant filed the motion to organize expertise both of the agreement and of the notification.

The court set aside the motion because the judge thought the expertise would lead to a delay in the trial proceedings. As the result the court dismissed the application for reviewing the previous decision (the ruling dated 15.11.2010). The court of cassation upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court`s decision: The High Court cancelled the ruling dated 15.11.2010 and the resolution of the court of cassation.

The Supreme Court inter alia cited both the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6) and Suda v. the Czech Republic provides the fundamental right to a fair trial could be infringed if a party to arbitration had not negotiated an arbitration clause.

In this case, since the court dismissed the motion to organize expertise without reasoned opinion and there are assumptions of the forgery of some of the evidence, the Supreme Court found the fundamental right to a fair trial had been infringed. The case (the issue of review the ruling dated 10.06.2009 due to the newly discovered facts) submitted for re-examination to the court of first instance (the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 23 September 2014. Case А32-25505/2008)


Архив для категории 'In English'

Russia: Recognition and enforcement a foreign judgment based on the principle of international politeness


Background: The claimant, a foreign-company, applied to a court for an application for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Justice of England. The defendant, a company domiciled in Russia, objected and alleged that defendant had not notified him of litigation. Moreover, the defendant thought if the agreement between Russia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on recognition and enforcement of judgments of its states is absent, the court should dismiss the application.

Court’s opinion: In accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965) the claimant took all measures to notify the defendant on litigation in England. The defendant refused this notification – the representative of the defendant refused to obtain documents in a Russian court. Then, the claimant sent the documents both by a courier service (DHL) and by e-mail and fax.

The defendant’s objection that there is no agreement between Russia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on recognition and enforcement of judgments of these states was rejected with reference to the principle of international politeness and recent position of the Supreme Court of Russia (the ruling dated 7 June 2002 N 5-GO2-64). The Court said if there is no agreement on recognition and enforcement of judgments of contracting states, this circumstance is not an unconditional for refusing recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Court’s decision: The court of first-instance ruled on the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. The Supreme Court of Russia upheld it (the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 18 August 2014. Case А07-16859/2013).


Архив для категории 'In English'

FCPA & RusAntitrust


«В части доводов Компании Т. о необходимости прохождения проверки Б. проверки по FCPA, ФАС России указал на то, что Б. является обществом, созданным и осуществляющим деятельность на территории Российской Федерации в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации. В связи с этим на Б. лежит обязанность по соблюдению российского законодательства, в частности, российского антикоррупционного законодательства <…> Обязанность Б. пройти проверку по FCPA не предусмотрена законодательством Российской Федерации».

***

“[the] FAS [the Federal Antimonopoly Service-S.M.] states that the company B. domiciled in Russia. Thereby, the company B. has to comply with Russian laws, including, the Russian anti-corruption law. Hence, according to Russian law there is no duty for the company B. to be tested in accordance with FCPA.”


Архив для категории 'In English'

Effective notification of Russian participants in international arbitration (Autorobot v Sollers-Elabuga)


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.

(далее…)


Архив для категории 'In English'

LCIA online


1 октября 2014 г. вступил в силу новый регламент Лондонского международного третейского суда (LCIA). Одно из нововведений – возможность подачи и обмена документами в электронной форме (см., например, статью 1 Регламента).

2 октября 2014 г. Лондонский международный третейский суд запустил специальный раздел на своем сайте, посредством которого участвующие в арбитраже стороны смогут реализовать свое право обмениваться документами в электронной форме.

Как указано на сайте, с его помощью стороны смогут не только обмениваться документами, подавать дополнительные документы, но и уплачивать арбитражный сбор, просить о назначении чрезвычайного арбитра и т.д.

Следует отметить, что Российская арбитражная ассоциация (РАА) также заявила о своем желании рассматривать арбитражные споры он-лайн, разрабатывается соответствующий регламент. Возможно, о сроках запуска этого ресурса и механизмах его работы будет сообщено на предстоящей конференции, которая пройдет в Москве 16 октября 2014 года.

***

The new LCIA Arbitration rules have entered into force on 1 October 2014. Among a number of changes there is an innovation that provides an opportunity for exchange of documents in electronic form (s 1 LCIA Arbitration rules).

On 2 October 2014 LCIA launched its online filling service on http://onlinefiling.lcia.org/ following coming into force the Rules.

It is said on LCIA Online Filling web page the system allows exchanging documents, for instance, requests for arbitration or responses, in electronic form as well as both to pay any filing fees online or to request for the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator.

It is important to say that the Russian Arbitration Association stated earlier that it intends to resolve both domestic and international disputes on-line too. The rules of on-line arbitration are being developed. Perhaps details of Russian on-line arbitration will be revealed at the conference that will be held in Moscow on 16 October 2014.


Архив для категории 'In English'

Back to the published: Kyrgyzstan v. investors


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.

Although the arbitral tribunal agreed with the claimant it is important to say a few things.

First and foremost the CIS Economic Court reversed its decision regarding the interpretation of article 11 of the Convention on 23 September 2014 (case No 01-1/1-14) . The court ruled that article 11 of the Convention applied only if party concluded an arbitration agreement. Provisions of article 11 of the Convention are not of an arbitration agreement of itself. (Currently the CIS Economic Court’s ruling is available in Russian only).

Moreover, on 23 September 2014 the Arbitrazh court of Moscow region (the court of cassation) overturned two decisions of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court (on 24 June 2014 and on 8 July 2014) regarding the revision of an arbitral tribunal’s interim award on grounds that it lacked competence.

Thus, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court will examine the issue of competence of the arbitral tribunal both in Kyrgyzstan v Lee John Bek and in Kyrgyzstan v Stans Energy Corp again and if I clear understand the Moscow Arbitrazh Court will have to apply the CIS Economic Court’s ruling dated on 23 September 2014.


Архив для категории 'In English'

The competence of arbitral tribunals under the Moscow Convention on protection of the rights of the investor


Arbitration analysis: 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.

The article is available on the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog and attached for free.

  Samoylov. The Competence of Arbitral Tribunals (72.3 Кб, 446 скачиваний)

I would greatly appreciate it if you kindly give me some feedback either on the LexisNexis DR blog or on my Linkedin page.

Update: See here