• Благотворительный фонд Весна в сердце

The Swedish and Russian approach to public policy: One case, two opinions

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.

Supreme Arbitrazh Court upholds pathological arbitration clause

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.


Enforcement of award at risk if punitive damages disproportionate

In April 2013, the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court of Russia ruled that any punitive damages claimed for breach of contract must be proportionate to the value of the contract (or part thereof) or else an application for enforcement of an arbitral award ordering the payment of such punitive damages will be rejected. Mikhail Samoylov, Senior Associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law, discusses the court’s ruling and considers whether the Russian courts may take a similar approach to the enforcement of international arbitration awards.