Two organisational models
In institutional arbitration, an institution performs administrative functions while the constituted tribunal decides the merits. In ad hoc arbitration, the parties form a tribunal for a particular dispute without general institutional administration.
Article 1(5) of 382-FZ expressly recognises both models. Article 2(17) also allows an institution to perform certain agreed functions in a particular ad hoc proceeding.
The relevant distinction
Paragraph 50 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 53 addresses procedures called ad hoc that actually have institutional features. Its examples include arbitrator lists or colleges, standing rules and ongoing organisational assistance involving different arbitrators.
The label should reflect how the procedure is organised in practice. The assessment concerns the circumstances as a whole.
The Constitutional Court’s explanation
Determination No. 826-O of 9 April 2024 distinguishes an unlawful substitute for an institution from necessary one-off arrangements for a particular case, such as exchanging documents or finding a hearing room.
The explanation must be read alongside Article 44 of Law No. 382-FZ. The actual structure of the procedure and the content of public offers remain relevant.
Examples with different judicial outcomes
Case law: Supreme Court 24 October 2023, 20-KG23-11-K5 quashed refusal and remanded: an individual ad hoc arbitrator needs no institutional listing, and disguised administration had not been established. The Court did not itself issue a writ.
By contrast, Supreme Court 12 March 2020, 304-ES19-20506 established institutional operations, appointment and file storage in Moscow without the required status and no agreement to genuine ad hoc arbitration. It itself refused the writ for evasion of law and public policy. This does not prohibit the ad hoc model.
One-off support, publicity and special powers
Statutory basis: Article 2(17) permits particular institutional functions in ad hoc arbitration; Article 44(20) restricts circumvention of institutional rules and related public offers. A label does not determine actual administration. Educational content alone does not establish administration of a particular proceeding.
Case law: Constitutional Court 30 May 2024, 1218-O declined the complaint and explained that distinguishing one-off arrangements from permanent services requires factual findings. It did not reverse an enforcement refusal. Compare court assistance with evidence and award enforcement.
How courts addressed the issue
Supreme Court, 24 October 2023, 20-KG23-11-K5Supreme Court: an ad hoc arbitrator needs no institutional listingRussian Constitutional Court · No. 826-OAd hoc: the boundary of organisational arrangementsSupreme Court Plenum · No. 53, paragraph 50When the ad hoc label is not enoughGeneral information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.