Arbitration in Russia: two laws and two models

Two principal statutes

Federal Law 382-FZ of 29 December 2015 governs domestic arbitration and arbitral institutions. Russian Law 5338-1 of 7 July 1993 governs international commercial arbitration within its scope. Certain organisational provisions of 382-FZ also apply to international arbitration seated in Russia. State court assistance and supervision are additionally governed by the civil and commercial procedure codes.

See the six-country court comparison for the competent court system and application route.

The institution organises the procedure

A permanent arbitral institution administers organisational procedures, correspondence and fees under the law and its rules. The right to perform institutional functions generally requires the statutory authorisation procedure. Article 44 exempts the ICAC and the Maritime Arbitration Commission at Russia’s Chamber of Commerce from obtaining that authorisation.

The tribunal resolves the dispute

A sole arbitrator or a panel decides the merits. In institutional arbitration, the institution and the tribunal have distinct functions. This distinction helps in reading the agreement, the rules and the resulting award.

Ad hoc arbitration remains available

Article 1(5) of 382-FZ expressly covers tribunals formed for a particular dispute. Ad hoc proceedings lack general institutional administration, while the law permits certain agreed institutional functions. Arbitrability and any special requirements for the selected model must be examined for the relevant category of dispute.

Why the distinction matters

Institutional requirements remain relevant when a procedure is described as ad hoc. Article 44(20) and paragraph 50 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution 53 address the relevant restrictions and consequences. The statutory availability of ad hoc proceedings must therefore be read alongside their actual organisation.

Selecting the statute and checking an institution

Statutory basis: Article 1(1)–(5) of 382-FZ, Article 1 of Law 5338-1 and Article 44 of 382-FZ. International character follows statutory connecting factors, not language or a foreign name. Certain organisational provisions of 382-FZ also apply to Russian-seated international commercial arbitration, whose procedure follows its specific statute.

Institutional authorisation is generally granted by the competent federal authority, Russia’s Ministry of Justice, through the prescribed procedure; the ICAC and MAC at the Chamber of Commerce have statutory exceptions. Foreign institutions administering Russian-seated proceedings engage Article 44’s special regime. Check the institution’s status and rules at the relevant time.

Judicial guidance and practical differences

Case law: Supreme Court 24 October 2023, 20-KG23-11-K5 rejected an institutional-listing requirement for an individual arbitrator and remanded. But Supreme Court 12 March 2020, 304-ES19-20506 itself refused a writ where institutional administration evaded the law. A general statement that ad hoc arbitration is prohibited does not describe the framework.

Institutions and ad hoc differ in access to special court-assisted evidence collection, certain express agreements and eligibility for special dispute categories. At a Russian seat both use the writ procedure. Check arbitrability separately from institutional status.