Arbitral awards: contents and correction

A written award and signatures

For Russian domestic arbitration, start with Law 382-FZ Article 34; for international commercial arbitration, use Law 5338-I Article 31. Both require a written award signed by the sole arbitrator or arbitrators. A panel’s majority signatures suffice where the reasons for missing signatures are stated. Law 382-FZ Article 34(1) separately requires the dissenting arbitrator’s signature and attachment of the dissent.

Majority voting and sufficient signatures on the resulting document are distinct questions. A result notification, unsigned draft and signed award are not interchangeable. Preserve the actual award version sent to the party for subsequent enforcement.

Russia: contents and reasons under two statutes

Law 382-FZ Article 34(2) begins “unless the parties have agreed otherwise”. Its list includes date and seat, tribunal and formation, parties, jurisdictional justification, claims and defences, applications, facts, evidence and applied law, disposition of each claim, costs and allocation and, where necessary, performance time and method. This discretionary list does not eliminate Article 34(1)’s writing and signature requirements.

Law 5338-I Article 31 separately requires reasons, the disposition of claims, the arbitration fee and costs with allocation, date and legal seat. It contains no general exception allowing parties to waive reasons of the kind found in certain foreign statutes. Russian international-commercial award requirements therefore cannot be inferred solely from the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Dispatch and receipt are different dates

Both Russian statutes require a signed copy to be delivered to each party after the award. Its stated date, dispatch and receipt may differ. Retain the text and attachments, postal records, electronic message with the attachment, receipt evidence and applicable notification rules.

Receipt matters to applications to the tribunal and certain judicial-review periods. Merely stating that an award was sent does not automatically establish every relevant date. In an Armenian case decided in 2022, missing proof of writ dispatch and receipt affected restoration of a filing period under historical legislation. It illustrates the importance of delivery records, rather than establishing a Russian restoration rule.

Correction, interpretation and an additional award

Correction addresses arithmetic, clerical, typographical or similar technical errors. Clarification or interpretation concerns the meaning of a particular provision; Russian Articles 37 and 33 require the relevant party agreement for that request. An additional award concerns a claim already submitted but left undecided. None is an ordinary appeal to the same tribunal.

An arithmetic error in the awarded sum raises correction. A duly submitted penalty claim left unresolved raises an additional award. A new claim never made in the arbitration cannot first be introduced as supplementation. A missing signature or jurisdictional dispute likewise does not automatically become a typographical error.

Russia: party requests and tribunal-action periods

Under Law 382-FZ Article 37 and Law 5338-I Article 33, a party ordinarily requests correction or agreed clarification within 30 days of receipt, unless another period is agreed, notifying the other party. The tribunal acts on a justified request within 30 days of receiving it. Its own-initiative correction of technical errors is limited to 30 days from the award date.

Unless otherwise agreed, an additional-award request is made within 30 days of receipt, and the tribunal makes a justified addition within 60 days of receiving the request. The statute permits extension of the relevant tribunal-action periods; that does not automatically extend the party’s request period. Every calendar entry should identify whose deadline it is, its trigger and any permitted agreed alteration.

Other countries: signatures, reasons and receipt

The comparison below addresses Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and two Belarusian regimes. Kazakhstan and two Moldovan regimes follow in separate sections. Even Model Law-related structures differ: reasons may be mandatory or waivable, while a request period may run from receipt or rendition. Each model identifies its sources and editions.

Kazakhstan: writing, signatures and mandatory contents

Under Article 47(1) of Law 488-V, the award is in writing and signed by the arbitrators or sole arbitrator. A collegiate award states why a signature is absent. A dissenting arbitrator may decline to sign; the written dissent is attached. Signature requirements are distinct from majority decision-making under Article 45(1).

Article 47(2) requires: adoption date; seat under Article 22; tribunal composition; jurisdictional justification; parties and representatives’ names, initials, positions and authority; claims and defences; the substance of the dispute; established facts, supporting evidence and legal instruments applied; disposition of each claim; costs and allocation and, where necessary, the period and manner of performance. This article provides no general agreement-based waiver of reasons.

Where only the operative part is announced, the reasoned award must be sent within 10 calendar days after that announcement unless the rules or agreement set another period: Article 45(1). Article 45(3) deems the award made at the seat and effective upon signature. The ten-day rule is conditional; it is not a universal delivery deadline for every award.

Kazakhstan: correction, interpretation and additional awards

Under Article 50(1), within 60 calendar days after receipt, unless the parties or rules set another period, a party notifying its opponent may request correction of a computational, clerical, typographical or similar error or interpretation of a specific point or part. If justified, the tribunal acts within 30 calendar days after the request unless the rules or agreement set another period. Interpretation forms part of the award.

Article 50(2) permits correction on the tribunal’s own initiative, following due notice, within 60 calendar days from the award date unless the rules or agreement provide otherwise. This clock runs from making the award, not party receipt.

Unless otherwise agreed, Article 50(3) allows a party, on notice, to request an additional award on a claim presented but omitted within 60 calendar days after receipt. A justified request is decided by an additional award within 60 calendar days after the tribunal receives it. Article 50(4) allows necessary extension of the tribunal’s periods under paragraphs 1 or 3 by no more than 60 calendar days.

Moldova: domestic framework under Law 23/2008

Article 29(1) requires a written award bearing all tribunal members’ signatures or the sole arbitrator’s signature; reasons for an absent signature are stated. Article 29(2) requires composition, date and place; individual parties’ names and addresses or companies’ names and seats; reference to the arbitration agreement; subject matter; factual and legal reasons or, for an equitable decision, reasons supporting the solution; signatures and other provisions. It contains no express party-agreed waiver of reasons.

Article 28(3) provides for confidential deliberation with all arbitrators personally participating. For a three-member tribunal, Article 28(4) provides a majority, with the presiding arbitrator’s view prevailing if no view obtains a majority. A reasoned dissent is attached. Article 28(5) requires delivery to the parties within 10 days of pronouncement.

Article 29(3)–(4) ties an interpretative ruling and correction of typographical, computational, similar errors or omissions to 30 days from adoption. Correction may be requested or initiated by the arbitrators. Under Article 29(5), supplementary, interpretative and correction acts are made with the parties summoned and form part of the award; requests for correction or an additional award require notice to the other party. Article 29(6) prevents charging the parties for those steps.

An omitted claim is governed separately by Article 30: a party, or arbitrators on their own initiative, may seek supplementation within 15 days of receipt or, as appropriate, pronouncement. The resulting ruling on a presented but omitted claim is an additional award. The international statute’s 60-day response period must not be imported into this domestic provision.

Moldova: international framework under Law 24/2008

Article 31(1) requires writing and arbitrator signatures; a collegiate tribunal needs a majority of signatures with an explanation for the others’ absence. Article 31(2) requires reasons unless waived by the parties or the award records agreed terms under Article 30; it also requires disposition of the claim, arbitration fees, costs and allocation.

Article 31(3) requires the date and seat under Article 20(1); the award is deemed made there. Article 31(4) requires each party to receive or be sent a copy signed as paragraph 1 provides. It does not import the domestic statute’s ten-day deadline. A costs-allocation decision also takes the form of an award under Article 33(4).

Under Article 35(1), absent a different agreed period, a correction request is made on notice within 30 days from adoption. Interpretation of a particular point or part may be requested, with mandatory notice, if the parties agreed to that possibility. A justified request is implemented within 30 days of receipt by the tribunal; the interpretation forms part of the award. Paragraph 2 permits correction on the tribunal’s own initiative within 30 days from adoption.

Unless otherwise agreed, Article 35(3) permits an additional-award request on notice for a presented but omitted claim within 30 days from adoption; a justified request must result in an additional award within 60 days after receipt by the tribunal. Article 35(4) permits necessary extension of the tribunal’s periods under paragraphs 1 or 3, without specifying a numerical maximum there; paragraph 5 applies Article 31 requirements to correction, interpretation and additional awards.

After correction: what to check next

Compare the original award, correction, interpretation or addition: what changed, when the documents were received and which version goes to the state court. A tribunal request does not supply a universal answer about suspending or triggering a judicial-challenge period; that is a separate domestic-law question.

Enforcement, annulment and refusal of recognition differ in subject and competent court. Continue with award enforcement, annulment and refusal and foreign awards. A technical error does not automatically mean annulment, and correction does not guarantee recognition everywhere.