Historical context
The Court examined earlier legislation following Sberbank’s complaint. The issue concerned an award by a tribunal at an organisation partly founded by a party.
The position
That founding connection alone could not justify refusing a writ. Independence and impartiality requirements remain and require examination of the actual circumstances.
Current application
The resolution predates the 2015–2016 reform. Its position must now be considered alongside current institutional and conflict-of-interest requirements and the actual tribunal composition.
Institutional links and personal independence
Paragraphs 3.1–3.2 distinguish a party’s founding role from an arbitrator’s dependence. The Court examines non-interference, remuneration, disclosure and challenges. Founding status alone does not justify refusal, while actual employment, financial and other connections require assessment.
Reading the ruling after reform
The resolution interpreted Law 102-FZ and former procedural provisions. It does not exempt a present institution from Law 382-FZ. The Constitutional Court issued no writ: it specified the constitutional interpretation and provided for reconsideration of the applicant’s court decisions absent other obstacles.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.