The consumer herself chose arbitration
Paragraph 1 of the civil-cases section in the Supreme Court Q4 2011 Review, approved on 14 March 2012, describes determination 19-V11-24. The consumer sought findings of inadequate water and sewerage services, recalculation of charges, moral-damage compensation and costs. She initiated arbitration and insisted on using the chosen tribunal. The utility’s representative participated without objecting to jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court rejected a blanket prohibition
The utility sought to set aside the resulting award. The city court refused, but the regional court annulled it, relying in part on supposedly exclusive state-court protection for consumers and the public nature of the contract. The Supreme Court quashed the cassation determination. It explained that Consumer Protection Law Article 17 does not prohibit arbitration and that the utility’s obligation to enter into a public contract does not turn the relationship into an administrative one.
The former rule and the current framework
The case applied former Law 102-FZ Article 5(3), governing adhesion contracts. The consumer’s intention after grounds for a claim arose mattered within that statutory framework. Current Law 382-FZ does not reproduce a general prohibition on advance clauses in every adhesion contract. Consumer credit remains subject to the distinct restriction in Law 353-FZ Article 13(4), confirmed by paragraph 19 of Plenum Resolution 53/2019. Present eligibility must also be checked against Civil Procedure Code Article 22.1 and mandatory consumer safeguards.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.