An agreement is the starting point
In arbitration, a sole arbitrator or a panel resolves a dispute on the basis of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Russian legislation describes arbitration as the process of resolving a dispute and making an arbitral award.
Three questions must be considered separately: whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, whether this particular dispute is legally arbitrable, and how the tribunal must be constituted. Answering one does not settle the others.
Understanding the terminology
A Russian state commercial court, often called an arbitrazh court, is part of the state judiciary. An arbitral tribunal resolves disputes through arbitration. Similar terminology does not give them the same legal nature.
Look at the body’s full name, its legal basis and the kind of decision it issues. State court involvement in enforcement does not turn arbitration into state court proceedings.
What matters in the procedure
A valid agreement, an independent and impartial tribunal, a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case, and compliance with applicable rules all matter. An award has legal significance; compulsory enforcement is subject to the court procedure established by law.
National law determines arbitrability, procedural requirements and the role of state courts; the parties’ agreement identifies the disputes submitted. Enforcement abroad also requires examination of international treaties and the enforcement country’s law. Connect three questions: what gives the tribunal authority, how the award was made, and how it can be enforced.
Where the tribunal’s authority comes from
Statutory basis: Article 1(3)–(5) and Article 2(1)–(3), (9), (15)–(17) of 382-FZ. Consent, arbitrability and lawful tribunal formation must each be established. An institution administers proceedings; a sole arbitrator or panel decides the dispute.
Case law: in Atameken, Supreme Court 24 May 2019, 301-ES18-24455, the reference to an “arbitrazh court at the claimant’s location” and other evidence did not establish private-arbitration consent. The Court itself refused enforcement. Expressed intent matters alongside terminology.
The award’s effect and the role of state courts
An award is intended first for voluntary compliance. Compulsory recovery involves a state court and then execution mechanisms. Assistance with appointment, interim relief and evidence each has its own conditions; eligibility for one does not establish eligibility for all.
Case law: Constitutional Court Decision 10-P of 26 May 2011 addresses voluntary, non-state resolution of civil disputes. It predates the reform; its constitutional principles must be read with current statutes. Continue with the proceedings guide and the enforcement guide.
How courts addressed the issue
Constitutional Court · 10-PConstitutional Court: the foundation of arbitrationGeneral information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.