Vadim Chubarov: “In principle, all types of civil disputes can be considered in arbitration.” Vadim Chubarov: “In principle, all types of civil disputes can be considered in arbitration” And how does the opening of ICAC branches in the regions take place?

On November 1, the Rules for granting the right to exercise the functions of a permanent arbitration institution came into force (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 25, 2016 No. 577). From this date, NPOs have the right to submit appropriate applications to the Government of the Russian Federation and, if permission is received, to create arbitration institutions according to the new ones provided for by the Federal Law of December 29, 2015 No. 382-FZ “On Arbitration (Arbitration Proceedings) in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the law on arbitration), rules. A member of the Council for Improving Arbitration Proceedings, Vice President of the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, told the GARANT.RU portal about how ready organizations are to comply with new requirements and what criteria will influence the decision to grant or refuse to grant the right to conduct arbitration proceedings. , D. Yu. n. Vadim Chubarov.

This is a fair demand. The arbitration institution should be created by a reputable and wealthy non-profit organization, since in order to launch arbitration proceedings, significant investments are required. Situations that took place in the recent past, when any LLC with an authorized capital of 10 thousand rubles. could create an arbitration court and declare that it competes with international arbitration centers must be excluded. NPOs must have sufficient funds for premises, software products, and qualified personnel. If we are talking about international commercial arbitration, then the arbitrators must have appropriate qualifications and have connections with colleagues abroad.

You mentioned the need for accounting conflict of interests in the activities of an arbitration institution. At the same time, the arbitration court will not be able to cancel the arbitration award or refuse to issue a writ of execution for its execution only on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest (Part 4 of Article 46 of the Arbitration Law ). Why doesn’t the law provide for specific consequences of considering a case if it exists?

Speaking about the inadmissibility of conflicts of interest within the meaning of Art. 46 of the Arbitration Law, one must remember the most important international principle of conducting arbitration proceedings - the impartiality and independence of arbitrators (Article 18 of the Arbitration Law), on which the global arbitration validity is based. It means that the arbitrator, before agreeing to resolve a particular dispute, must very carefully analyze whether he has a conflict of interest in this dispute. It is no coincidence that the arbitration law speaks of the need for the arbitration institution to develop and apply rules for the impartiality and independence of arbitrators (Clause 8, Part 4, Article 45 of the Arbitration Law).

The first group - the so-called red list - includes circumstances that certainly impede the exercise of the powers of an arbitrator . In the presence of such circumstances, the arbitrator is obliged to recuse himself, and if he does not do this, the challenge is declared by the party and is compulsorily satisfied. If this arbitrator does make a decision, it will be overturned by the court. The orange list determines when a person must notify the parties about this or that circumstance, and they themselves must decide whether to trust him to resolve the dispute or not. It is to this group that I would include the cases of conflict of interest listed in subp. 2 and sub. 3 hours 2 tbsp. 46 of the Arbitration Law . They are not absolute grounds for setting aside an arbitration award, but if the state court, in the process of assessing it, comes to the conclusion that public policy has been violated, the award will be set aside. The green list includes circumstances that the arbitrator shouldn't reveal , since they cannot affect its independence or impartiality. The RF CCI approved such rules back in 2010 (Order of the RF CCI dated August 27, 2010 No. 39), taking as a basis the guidelines of the International Bar Association (IBA) regarding conflicts of interest in international arbitration. This document provides for three groups of circumstances that may raise doubts about the impartiality or independence of the arbitrator, and the consequences of the presence of such circumstances.

Amendments to the legislation regulating the scope of arbitration proceedings have included corporate disputes in the list of arbitrable disputes. Please tell us about the advantages of considering this type of dispute through arbitration.

This is a new approach, borrowed from German legislation, which provides for the possibility of resolving corporate disputes in arbitration, albeit a fairly narrow range of them. Russian legislation has taken a different path, establishing that almost all corporate disputes are recognized as arbitrable, with some exceptions (parts 2-5 of article 225.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, in particular, disputes regarding the convening of a general meeting and disputes arising from the activities of notaries in certifying transactions with shares in the authorized capital are non-arbitrable.

In addition to the fact that arbitration is a single instance, elected arbitrators, shorter terms, it has one more important additional advantage. Arbitration awards are made not only on the basis of the rules of applicable law (Article 32 of the Law on Arbitration, Article 28 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 7, 1993 No. 5338-I “On International Commercial Arbitration”), but also often taking into account traditions or international rules , which are recognized as customs, and this circumstance can become very attractive to organizations. An arbitration institution that provides consideration of disputes involving a certain company can become such a “house doctor” for it, since it will know the laws and traditions by which it lives and take them into account when making decisions. Decisions of state courts on corporate disputes, as a rule, are scattered, not interconnected, and are made without taking into account the company's policies and existing traditions.

However, there is a possibility that not every corporate dispute will be able to go to arbitration. If there are several participants in a corporation, then all of them must sign an arbitration clause regarding the consideration of disputes in a specific arbitration institution. Organizations may have difficulty with this.

Will the cost of arbitration change due to the tightening of requirements for arbitration institutions and the complication of the procedure for their creation?

The arbitration bodies at the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry are already completing work on the provisions on expenses, arbitrators' fees, etc., necessary for the implementation of arbitration under the new rules. None of the documents provides for an increase in fees. Why? Because we are interested in organizations turning to us, which means the amount of arbitration fees cannot significantly exceed the amount of state fees in state arbitration courts. Our country has one of the cheapest justice systems: companies go to court with multimillion-dollar claims, paying a fee of only a few thousand rubles. Someday we will come to the conclusion that this model needs to be revised and some kind of minimum barrier established, but for now the reality is this, and we must prove that arbitration courts are no less, and sometimes more, accessible than state courts.

International commercial arbitration is traditionally more expensive than national arbitration proceedings, since it involves the involvement of foreign arbitrators. But even in this case, our arbitration fees are lower than, for example, in Stockholm and London, and the quality of the decisions is no worse.

Vadim Vitalievich, how do you, as a direct participant in the preparation of the reform of the institution of arbitration, see its further development?

I would draw attention to the possibilities laid down in the law. For example, to expand arbitrability. After all, disputes from state and municipal procurement can also be arbitrable, but for this it is necessary to pass a law establishing the procedure for determining the arbitration institution to which state customers or municipal customers will entrust the administration of these disputes (Part 8 of Article 13 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2015 No. 409-FZ). This perspective must be further promoted and put into practice.

In addition, we must simultaneously look at two areas: the practice of applying the law (have all the documents necessary for its implementation been adopted, which norms work, which do not) and interaction with state courts. Maximum communication to state courts of the meaning and content of the new legislation is a very important area of ​​activity, since if they take a conservative position regarding arbitration, this will hinder its development. Without interaction with state courts, a country cannot be considered pro-arbitration. We have had several cases where plaintiffs, whose decisions of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry in respect of which were overturned by state courts, recognized and enforced arbitration awards in other countries. We would not like to work in such dissonance, so we hope that the practice of our state courts will be consistent with world practice.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation is a voluntary non-governmental association of entrepreneurs, operating in accordance with a special federal law. It unites more than several hundred territorial chambers of commerce and industry and other associations of Russian entrepreneurs; its direct members are also individual commercial and non-profit organizations. The structure of the chamber includes 20 committees. The chamber operates the International Commercial Arbitration Court, the Arbitration Court for resolving economic disputes, the Maritime Arbitration Commission, the Sports Arbitration, and the Panel of Mediators. The structure of the chamber includes foreign representative offices, several dozen international business councils, various expert and coordination councils. In addition, the structure of the chamber includes such organizations as the International Trade Center, Expocentre, Soyuzpatent, Soyuzexpertiza and other companies in which the chamber is a founder or owns a controlling stake.

Management of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Katyrin Sergey Nikolaevich - Chairman of the Board, President of the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Vice-presidents of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry:

Dmitriev Vladimir Alexandrovich.

Dybova Elena Nikolaevna.

Kurochkin Dmitry Nikolaevich.

Padalko Vladimir Ivanovich.

Fateev Maxim Albertovich.

Chubarov Vadim Vitalievich.

Board of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry:

Bliznets Ivan Anatolyevich - Rector of the Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property, Chairman of the Council of the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Intellectual Property.

Degtyarev Fedor Lukich - President of the South Ural Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Dmitriev Vladimir Aleksandrovich - Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Dybova Elena Nikolaevna - Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Ermakov Viktor Petrovich - General Director of the Joint Stock Company "Russian Agency for Support of Small and Medium Businesses", public commissioner for the protection of the rights of SMEs.

Kanygin Petr Sergeevich - Chairman of the Board of Directors of OJSC Biotechnology Corporation.

Katyrin Sergey Nikolaevich - President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Krasnov Dmitry Germanovich - General Director of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Nizhny Novgorod Region.

Kuznetsov Evgeniy Nikolaevich - vice-president of JSC Independent Construction Bank.

Kunilovsky Alexander Anatolyevich - General Director of CJSC Construction and Investment Holding Likos, Orenburg.

Kurochkin Dmitry Nikolaevich - Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Natalenko Elena Vladimirovna - director of the Lapushka-Malyshka chain of children's goods stores, Kaluga.

Padalko Vladimir Ivanovich - Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Prisyazhnyuk Nikolay Ivanovich - President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Rostov Region.

Pustovgarov Yuri Leonidovich - Managing Director of the Kumertau Aviation Production Enterprise, Republic of Bashkiria, Kumertau city.

Skrug Valery Stepanovich - President of the Belgorod Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Stupnitsky Boris Vladimirovich - President of the Primorsky Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Telegina Galina Dmitrievna - President of the Vologda Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Tuganov Kazbek Khazbievich - President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania.

Fateev Maxim Albertovich - Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Chesnokov Boris Anatolyevich - President of the Altai Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Chubarov Vadim Vitalievich - Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

In 1980 - Graduated with honors from the Sverdlovsk Law Institute, in 1985 – postgraduate studies at this institute.

In 1985 defended his PhD thesis ahead of schedule on the topic “Terminating legal facts in Soviet housing law” (supervisor – Professor V.F. Yakovlev).

Since 1989 worked at the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation.

Since 2005 – Head of the Department of Business Legislation;

Since 2007 – Deputy Director of IZIP for scientific work.

In 2006 defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Problems of legal regulation of real estate.” Doctor of Law.

Since 2008 works at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Member of the Presidium of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.

Member of the Council for the Codification and Improvement of Civil Legislation under the President of the Russian Federation.

Chairman of the Sports Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, member of the board of the Russian Bar Association, arbitrator of a number of arbitration courts.

Participated in the development of the Concept for the development of civil legislation on real estate, the Concept for improving Section II “Ownership and other real rights” of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Awarded with gratitude from the Government of the Russian Federation, a diploma of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, and the medal of A.F. Koni, Themis Prize for 2012

Chubarov Vadim Vitaljevich

Born on 12th October 1959 in Nizhny Tagil. Graduated from Sverdlovsk Law Institute with distinction in 1980 and postgraduate studies in 1982-1985. Defended master's thesis in 1985.

From 1989 worked at the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law at the Government of the Russian Federation; from 2005 – Head of Department of the Entrepreneurship Legislation; in 2007 appointed as Deputy Director on scientific work of this Institute. In 2006 defended the doctor's thesis degree on “Problems of legal regulation of real estate.” From 1993 till 2004 – worked in a private legal practice.

From 2008 works in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Doctor of legal science. Member of the Civil law codification Council at the President of the Russian Federation. Member of the scientific and advisory Council at the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation. Member of the Presidium of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the (ICAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, President of the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Member of the Commission for sports law of the Russian Lawyers Association; Arbitrator of arbitration tribunals.

Associate editor of “The Civil Law Bulletin” journal and ‘The journal of Russian Law”, Member of editorial advice of “Bulletin of the International Commercial Arbitration” (Moscow) and “Arbitration tribunal” (St.-Petersburg) journals.

The co-author of the monograph “Protection of housing rights of citizens in state and public housing” (1989), the author of the monograph “Legal regulatory problems of the real estate” (2006); the co-author and co-editor of the monograph “Property right: actual problems” (2008), the co-author of the monograph “Codification of the Russian private law” (2008). Participated in commenting of laws “On privatization of the state and municipal enterprises in RSFSR” (head author, 1993), “On state registration of the rights to real estate and bargains with it” (1999 - 2000), and also judicial and arbitration practice; the co-author of a course of lectures “Civil right of the Russian Federation” (part I - 1996-2001 and part II - 1997 and 2003), textbook “Entrepreneurship law” (1994), Comment of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (1994-2004).

In 2002-2003, as a part of a working group, (chief prof. V.V. Vitryanskiy) worked on the Concept of the real estate law. In 2008-2009, as a part of a working group (chief prof. A.A. Ivanov) worked on the Concept of amendments of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

From 2014 as a vice-chief of a working group (chief prof. A.A.Ivanov) working on the Law on Arbitration in the Russian Federation.

Moreover, was awarded by Gratitude of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Certificate of honor of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and A.F.Koni's medal.

Deputy Chairman of the Council - Vice-President of the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Law. n. told the GARANT.RU portal about how many arbitration institutions are already operating under the new rules, about the attempts of unscrupulous arbitration courts to continue to exist outside the law, and about the immediate prospects for the development of arbitration proceedings in Russia.

Vadim Vitalievich, the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) and the Maritime Arbitration Commission (MAC) at the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry are the only institutions that did not need to obtain permission to perform the functions of a permanent arbitration institution. However, they must fulfill other requirements, including depositing the rules of a permanent arbitration institution. This was done in January of this year, that is, these arbitration bodies have been working under the new rules for six months now. What changes have been made to their arbitration rules?

Among the changes in the rules of arbitration of international commercial disputes are the introduction of an accelerated procedure for proceedings in a number of categories of cases, a reduction in the processing time, the establishment of a special chapter on the plurality of claims, the emergence of a new, additional party that can join an already ongoing arbitration.

The approved rules for resolving corporate disputes are completely new. They are based on the Rules of the German Arbitration Association (Deutsche Institution f"ur Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V. DIS), however, when developing the rules, it was taken into account that in Russia there is a wider list of corporate disputes that can be considered in arbitration ().

A promising area of ​​activity of the ICAC is the provision of certain functions for the administration of arbitration carried out by an arbitration tribunal, which is established to resolve a specific dispute (ad hoc) - the corresponding rules have also been approved. In this case, the arbitration institution provides assistance, but does not resolve the dispute on the merits. Every year the ICAC assists in resolving 3-4 such disputes in the field of international arbitration. Now it will be possible to provide assistance to the parties in ad hoc national disputes.

Has the composition of the lists of arbitrators changed in connection with the requirements of the arbitration law (one third of the arbitrators must have an academic degree, half must have at least 10 years of experience)?

Qualitatively, the composition of the arbitrators has not changed, because all the arbitrators included in the list meet the criteria specified in the law ().

At the same time, the list of arbitrators expanded: it included candidates proposed by the territorial branches of the ICAC, as well as representatives of the judicial community - retired judges of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and judges of arbitration courts, who are not only excellent lawyers, but also supported arbitration proceedings throughout of your career.

The same requirements apply to all listed arbitrators, and when forming a list of arbitrators in sports disputes, we tried to take into account the special requirement for work experience in the field of professional sports (Part 7, Article 36.2 of the Federal Law of December 4, 2007 No. 329-FZ " " ). Consideration of sports disputes is a rather important area: during its existence, the Sports Arbitration at the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry has resolved slightly less than 60 cases, including anti-doping disputes involving disqualified athletes.

Will the time for consideration of disputes and the workload of arbitrators increase due to the expansion of the competence of the ICAC?

Arbitrators have not yet experienced a significant increase in the number of cases, but they are ready for it and are interested in it, since new disputes are a new interesting practice.

If the number of disputes increases, the workload on the secretariat will increase, since it is the one who is directly involved in the administration of arbitration. But there shouldn’t be any problems here either; we were initially ready to consider a much larger number of cases.

In addition, regional branches of the ICAC will help distribute the workload of arbitrators in internal disputes. Today they are open in Rostov-on-Don, Irkutsk and Ufa, one of them has already received three cases for resolution. It was also decided to create a fourth branch of the ICAC in Kazan.

How are ICAC branches opening in the regions?

I will immediately point out one detail: in all of the above cases, a branch of the ICAC and a branch of the RF CCI are created simultaneously. At the same time, the branch of the Chamber is intended to ensure the normal administrative, financial and economic functioning of the ICAC branch, since both the ICAC and its branch do not have a sufficient degree of legal personality. The decision to create a branch of the ICAC is made by the Presidium of the ICAC, and the decision to create a branch is made by the Council of the Chamber. In both cases, it is necessary to justify the need for their creation.

The listed branches of the ICAC were created, as a rule, at the request of the territorial chamber of commerce and industry and on the basis of the arbitration court that existed at it. When considering the application, it is taken into account how much arbitration proceedings are in demand in the region (in particular, how many actually operating arbitration courts were created on its territory), whether there is a serious civil law school that can provide us with qualified arbitrators (law schools of state universities in the above four regions are quite strong). The number of cases considered directly by the arbitration court at the territorial chamber of commerce and industry is of great importance. If it is insignificant, the creation of a branch will most likely be denied.

In addition, attention is drawn to the activity of the president of the territorial Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The demand for arbitration in the region depends on whether he convinces the business community to choose arbitration as an alternative to state courts, and government authorities to support this initiative. Thus, the presence of the head of the Republic of Bashkotorstan R.Z. Khamitov and representatives of all branches of government at the opening of the ICAC branch says that in the future in Bashkiria, great attention will be paid to arbitration proceedings.

In conclusion, I would like to note that all four created branches of the ICAC and branches established by the Chamber are “pilot”. Their “pilot” nature largely predetermined the rather liberal approach of both the ICAC and the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry to assessing the capabilities of those territorial chambers that applied for their creation. At the same time, the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry in its documents initially declared the idea that the created branches of the ICAC would be interregional in nature. Therefore, the approach to the creation of new branches of the ICAC will be quite balanced, aimed at achieving the strategic goals that are outlined in and in - introducing international standards for dispute resolution with the participation of the ICAC into the commercial practice of the regions.

The territorial Chamber of Commerce and Industry may take a different path and create a new arbitration institution of its own. Which option is better?

I cannot give an assessment of what is better or worse, these are different procedures. Since the ICAC and MAC were created under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, the chamber is responsible for their development, including the creation of regional branches of the ICAC in the manner described above. If the territorial Chamber of Commerce and Industry decides to create an independent arbitration institution, it must obtain government permission to carry out the functions of a permanent arbitration institution according to the established rules.

Currently existing arbitration courts must obtain government permission to conduct arbitration proceedings before November 1 of the current year. After this date, what should parties who have entered into an agreement to resolve disputes in an institution that has not received appropriate permission do?

From November 1, all agreements concluded in relation to arbitration courts created under the old rules are considered arbitration agreements to submit disputes to an ad hoc arbitration court, unless the parties to the dispute agree on a different procedure for resolving the dispute (the parties can either enter into a new agreement to resolve disputes in an arbitration institution who has received permission, or apply to state courts). There is one exception: the agreement does not need to be renegotiated if an arbitration institution is created - a successor to the corresponding arbitration court.

At the same time, all disputes, the consideration of which was started and not completed before November 1, continue to be considered by the arbitration tribunal, and all functions related to the administration of arbitration are to be performed by the arbitration tribunal as in ad hoc arbitration, unless the parties to the dispute agree on a different procedure for resolving the dispute and unless the arbitration agreement becomes unenforceable.

How many NPOs have currently applied for permission to perform the functions of a permanent arbitration institution?

According to the report of the Council for the Improvement of Arbitration Proceedings, for the period from the beginning of November 2016 to March 3, 2017, 14 applications were received for consideration by the Council. Due to the submission of documents containing false information or incomplete documents, ten NPOs were refused further consideration, which does not prevent the re-submission of documents after the grounds that caused the refusal have been eliminated.

Two applications from NPOs establishing arbitration institutions were considered by the Council. Based on the results of the consideration, the Government of the Russian Federation was recommended to grant these organizations the right to perform the functions of a permanent arbitration institution. Thus, in May of this year, the all-Russian public organization "Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs" and the autonomous non-profit organization "Institute of Modern Arbitration" (,) received permission.

A small discussion arose among the members of the Council about what should be understood by the widely recognized international reputation of a foreign arbitration institution, which gives it the opportunity, within the framework, to obtain the right to perform the functions of a permanent arbitration institution on the territory of Russia. In the opinion of the majority of Council members, arbitration institutions of the first magnitude have such a reputation: the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, the Vienna International Arbitration Center, etc. If one of such institutions had submitted an application, then, most likely, would have received permission to administer disputes. But no such applications were received.

By the way, the participation of international institutions in arbitration in Russia is now being discussed by the arbitration community in a slightly different context: whether they can consider disputes between purely Russian companies. The reason for this was the case of the Russian-Singapore Arbitration, which resolved a dispute between two national companies. The Moscow Arbitration Court, to which one of the parties applied for a writ of execution for the execution of an arbitration award, refused to issue it, indicating that a domestic dispute cannot be resolved by foreign arbitration, since this violates the public order of the Russian Federation (determined by the Arbitration Court of Moscow). Moscow dated January 20, 2017 in case No. A40-219464/16). This determination was supported by the arbitration court of appeal.

However, the cassation court found unfounded the conclusion of the first instance court that the absence of management bodies, representative offices or branches of Russian legal entities abroad entails the lack of competence of the international arbitration institution to consider a dispute with their participation in the territory of another state. He sent the case for a new trial, indicating that it was necessary to establish whether there were grounds for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award ().

The court of first instance again refused to satisfy the request for forced execution of the decision of the Russian-Singapore Arbitration Court, noting that it was made in Russia, not Singapore, which means there are no grounds for enforcing it in the prescribed manner (decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated May 5, 2017 in case No. A40-219464/16-52-430).

The approach proposed by the cassation court is a clear blow to the reform of arbitration proceedings. Thus, in the explanatory note to the bill on the basis of which it was adopted, it was directly stated that “... the imperfection of the legal regulation provided for within the framework of the federal law on arbitration courts [. – GARANT.RU], in practice leads to numerous abuses using arbitration courts, which, in turn, leads to discrediting this institution." If this approach were preserved, then all such arbitration institutions that previously acted in gross violations of the law and are now not ready receive government permission in the prescribed manner, would continue their activities in the form of “Russian-Uruguayan”, “Italian-Ethiopian” and other arbitrations.

A number of experts refer to the fact that developed jurisdictions allow the resolution of national disputes by international arbitration institutions. But it is unlikely that the developed jurisdictions indicated by international arbitration institutions mean “Russian-Singapore” arbitration. I believe they mean the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, the ICAC at the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry, etc.

We, together with Council members A.N. Zhiltsov and D.N. Podshibyakin prepared and sent to the Council an analytical note on this issue, which notes that although Russian legislation does not contain rules directly prohibiting the referral of disputes without a foreign element to foreign arbitration, the direction of legislative policy on the issue under consideration is visible quite clearly:

• does not allow the possibility of applying foreign law to relations that are not complicated by a foreign element;
• the Law of the Russian Federation of July 7, 1993 No. 5338-I "" neither in its original nor in the updated version included liberal rules regarding the determination of the international nature of arbitration;
• provides for the possibility of concluding prorogation agreements only if one of the parties to the agreement is a foreign person;
• The updated legislation on arbitration proceedings preserves the dualism of regulation in relation to international and domestic arbitration.

If we add to this that not only countries such as China and India, but also members of the Eurasian Economic Union Kazakhstan and Belarus, albeit in different ways, introduce a ban on the submission to international arbitration of disputes involving residents of these countries, then the Russian injunction This kind of arbitration practice appears to be quite justified.

Will the statistics in the field of administration of international commercial arbitration by Russian arbitration institutions change?

All arbitration courts had the right to resolve disputes according to the rules of international commercial arbitration until September 1, 2016. But if you look at their practice, you can see that it is calculated in units of cases of this kind. In international arbitration, authority is extremely important; international companies choose only those arbitration institutions that they know. At the ICAC, for example, up to 10% of international commercial arbitration disputes are disputes involving non-residents (companies from Lithuania, Belarus, etc.).

The Council for Professional Qualifications for Trade, Foreign Trade and Certain Types of Entrepreneurial and Economic Activities of the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry is working to prepare a draft professional standard “Specialist in Arbitration Administration (Arbitration Proceedings)”. At what stage is its development?

The draft of this professional standard, which is being developed by the RF Chamber of Commerce and Industry together with the All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade, is currently undergoing a procedure of professional and public discussion. We are collecting opinions from companies associated with arbitration and are waiting for the project to be assessed by higher education institutions.

Selecting arbitration administration specialists is a very difficult task, since they must meet many requirements, therefore, as a rule, only people who have experienced arbitration can become such specialists. Accordingly, those criteria that take into account the specifics of types of arbitration - for example, a specialist in the administration of international commercial arbitration, among other things, must speak languages ​​and know international practice - are included in the project.

After approval, the professional standard will be applied by employers in accordance with the norms of labor legislation () as the basis for determining the qualification requirements for workers, taking into account the specifics of their performance of labor functions in the field of arbitration administration.

And in conclusion, probably the most important question. What types of disputes are most often considered and will be considered in the future through arbitration proceedings?

I am convinced that all types of civil disputes can be resolved in arbitration. Moreover, the more complex the case, the more desirable it is to consider it through arbitration.

Of course, we can name the most frequently resolved disputes through arbitration. In international arbitration, these are purchase and sale, construction contracts, rent, disputes related to consulting services, transportation.

In the area of ​​internal disputes, one can also highlight the purchase and sale, especially of electricity, etc., and construction contracts. Promising, in my opinion, is the consideration of certain types of disputes related to state and municipal procurement, as well as procurement within the framework, but for this it is necessary to adopt the appropriate law (). It seems to me that the parties, including state and municipal authorities, should be interested in this, since it is more convenient to consider, for example, a dispute arising from a contract for cleaning streets worth 8 million rubles, in one instance by qualified arbitrators, than to go through with There are four instances in the state courts.

The popularity of arbitration of corporate disputes will depend on how decisive and advanced company managers are. It is necessary that they entrust arbitration institutions with the ongoing consideration of disputes involving their companies, then arbitration will prove that it is ready to resolve these disputes. It should be noted that in Germany (namely, the German experience formed the basis for the amendments that made corporate disputes in Russia arbitrable), arbitration institutions do not consider a very large number of corporate disputes, but it seems to me that Russia can surpass it in this indicator. Of course, this is not a one-time thing, and we, for our part, are doing everything to popularize arbitration and explain its possibilities to entrepreneurs.

Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Born on October 12, 1959 in Nizhny Tagil; in 1980 he graduated with honors from the Sverdlovsk Law Institute, in 1985 he completed postgraduate studies at this Institute; in 1985 under the guidance of prof. Yakovleva V.F. defended his Ph.D. dissertation ahead of schedule on the topic “Entitlement-terminating legal facts in Soviet housing law”; since 1989 he worked at the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, since 2005 - head of the Department of Business Legislation, since 2007 - deputy director of IZIP for scientific work; in 2006 he defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Problems of legal regulation of real estate”; in 1993-2004 engaged in private legal practice; From 2008 - 2011 - Director of the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the RF CCI, Moscow From 2011 to the present - Vice-President of the RF CCI. Doctor of Law. Member of the Council for the Codification and Improvement of Civil Legislation under the President of the Russian Federation, the Scientific Advisory Council at the Supreme Arbitration Court, the Scientific Advisory Council at the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, the Scientific Advisory Council at the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia; Deputy Chairman of the Sports Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, arbitrator of a number of arbitration courts; member of the editorial board of the journal "Bulletin of Civil Law", member of the editorial board of the journal "Arbitration Court"; co-author of the monograph “Protection of Housing Rights of Citizens in State and Public Housing Stock” (1989), author of the monograph “Problems of Legal Regulation of Real Estate” (2006), co-author and co-editor of the monograph “Property Rights: Current Issues” (2008), co-author of the monograph “Codification Russian private law" (2008); took part in commenting on the laws “On the privatization of state and municipal enterprises in the RSFSR” (leader of the team of authors, 1993), “On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it” (1999, 2000), as well as judicial and judicial arbitration practice ; is a co-author of the course of lectures "Civil Law of Russia" (Part I - 1996-2001 and Part II - 1997 and 2003), the textbook "Business Law" (1994), Commentary on the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (1994-2004); in 2002-2003, as part of a working group (headed by V.V. Vitryansky), he participated in the development of the Concept for the development of civil legislation on real estate; in 2008-2009 as part of the working group (leader A. A. Ivanov) participated in the development of the Concept for improving Section II “Ownership and other real rights” of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; awarded the Gratitude of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Certificate of Honor of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, and the A.F. Koni Medal.