Supreme Court of Russia Denies Enforcement of ICC Award

D&I Alert

Posted on

19 Nov

2018

Share this

Dittmar & Indrenius > Insight > Supreme Court of Russia Denies Enforcement of ICC Award

The Supreme Court of Russia has recently in a judgment of 26 September 2018 surprised many international arbitration practitioners by holding that the standard ICC arbitration clause in a contract between Luxembourgish and Russian parties was not sufficiently clear evidence of the parties’ agreement that the ICC Court of International Arbitration was to administer their arbitration.

Similarly to the model arbitration clauses of many of the leading arbitral institutions, the standard ICC arbitration clause does not specifically state that the arbitration will be administered by the ICC Court of International Arbitration. Rather, a reference to arbitration under the ICC Rules has virtually without exception been understood to inevitably mean arbitration that is administered by the ICC Court and its Secretariat under the ICC Rules. The model ICC Arbitration clause stipulates: “[a]ll disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules.

In the Russian case, the Luxembourgish claimant had obtained a favourable decision in an arbitration seated in Geneva, Switzerland. In the final arbitral award, the Russian company had been ordered to pay EUR 3.6 million in damages plus interest.

The Supreme Court of Russia denied the enforcement of the ICC award on the basis that the award was against the public policy of Russia and that the ICC Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration clause failed to specify the arbitral institution that was to administer the arbitration.

A similar reasoning can be found in a judgement delivered by the Chinese Supreme People’s Court previously.

The Russian Supreme Court’s judgment marks a distinct departure from its previous judgments, on which it has upheld ICC and other standard arbitration clauses. We understand that the judgment will not be considered as a binding precedent in Russia but will nevertheless have at least a persuasive effect on future judgments.

We further understand that Mr Alexis Mourre, the President of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC, has sent a letter to the Supreme Court of Russia requesting a clarification on the ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia deeming a standard ICC Arbitration Clause defective and unenforceable under Russian law.

Effect on Finnish businesses

Taking into consideration the unpredictability of the repercussions of the judgement in Russia, we would advise Finnish parties that are considering entering into an arbitration agreement with a Russian or Chinese counterparty to amend the standard arbitration clauses of any institutions, including the FAI, to state clearly that any disputes are to be referred to arbitration, administered by the named arbitration institution in accordance with the relevant institutions’ rules.

Whilst the recent judgment of the Russian Supreme Court concerned a standard ICC clause, the Russian courts may adopt a similar position towards any institutional standard arbitration clauses, as they also merely refer to arbitration under the given institution’s rules.

The FAI and SCC standard/model arbitration clauses use language that is similar to the ICC model clause and also omit the express reference to the institution itself:

FAI model arbitration clause

SCC model arbitration clause

We advise clients to contact D&I’s Dispute Powerhouse team and to seek further advice regarding tailor made arbitration clauses when dealing with Russian parties.

D&I’s Dispute Powerhouse is following up on the developments of the matter and will keep you updated.

Latest Insights

insight
Si vis pacem, para bellum – If you want peace, prepare for war
30 Nov 2018 Some of us argue for a living. Every day we are witnessing conflicts arising in commercial contractual relationships and cooperation projects. We can see how vast amounts of companies' resources are taken up each day by commercial disputes. Commercial disputes take the focus away from productive business operations, take up enormous amounts of time and impose a financially burden on the organisation. In addition, disputes are often embodied in a certain person or persons within the organization and, thus, create excessive stress for those involved and may even leave a permanent mark in the lives of those caught up in them. "Lack of empathy on the negotiating table considerably increases the likelihood of a dispute" Conflicts often arise from agreements that are ambiguous or otherwise open to various interpretations. Sometimes, distrust between the parties has already taken root during the contractual negotiations. Lack of empathy on the negotiating table considerably increases the likelihood of a dispute. Palpable promotion of one’s own interests without any regard to the needs of the other party fosters distrust between the parties. Lack of trust typically stems from a fear of being mistreated. If the parties had concentrated on building trust during the negotiations, instead of conducting themselves in a manner that destroys trust, the parties would also be likely to embark on constructive discussions in the event of a subsequent dispute over an interpretation of a contractual clause, for instance, as opposed to automatically jumping to the conclusion that they are being wronged by the other party. The parties should invest in the prevention of disputes already in the drafting stages of the agreement. In order to prevent disputes, we must first understand how they usually arise. In circumstances, where despite all the preemptive measures taken, disputes have nevertheless arisen, they must be professionally managed from the beginning. This subsequently maximises the chances of success in the potential proceedings. Gentlemen’s agreements are the worst. After all, they require the presence of at least two gentlemen. Otherwise, a gentlemen’s agreement is simply an arrangement between two people, neither of whom is a gentleman and both of whom expect the other to comply with the agreement while they personally have no intention of doing so. Using legal proceedings as means of revenge is the lowest of the low. Despite the fact that the party is well aware of how much time and resources a litigation or arbitration will take away from the productive business operations of both parties, how much stress and how many sleepless nights it causes, how it destroys relationships, traumatises families and causes not only great expenses but considerable economic losses, nothing can sway them from seeking their vengeance. In these situations, I always like to remind people of the old Chinese saying: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” Dispute Academy The Dispute Academy is a course tailored for companies with the central goal of preventing disputes and successfully managing conflicts. The course is designed for an organisation’s employees who are authorised to undertake commitments on behalf of the company. For more information, please contact Jussi Lehtinen, Head of Dispute Powerhouse.  

Share this

Dittmar & Indrenius