at Russian
Institute
of Modern
Arbitration
at Russian
Institute
of Modern
Arbitration
A dispute from a forwarding contract for areight transportation organization.
20.10.2023
11.09.2023
30.08.2023
10.08.2023
08.08.2023
24.07.2023
24.07.2023
21.07.2023
13.07.2023
03.07.2023
16.06.2023
13.06.2023
29.05.2023
A dispute under the Forwarding Contract for Freight Transportation Organization, pursuant to which the Claimant as forwarder was to provide freight forwarding services to the Respondent as a client, by organising international transportation or transportation across Russia by rail, road, sea or other modes of transport, and the Respondent was to make certain payments in consideration for these services. The Claimant sought to recover the outstanding additional costs as they could not be calculated prior to the actual provision of these services. The Respondent believed all his debts under the Contract to the Claimant were already covered. Moreover, the Respondent emphasised that its cargo (bottles of red wine) was seriously damaged and delayed, which caused the Respondent's losses. Still, it received no solution or answer from the Claimant. The Respondent is of the view that it does not owe the Claimant “financially or morally”, and that the above points should offset the Claimant’s claims.
22.05.2023
The Parties entered into a contract for the supply and installation of imported equipment. The Claimant (Contractor) admitted that, during the performance of the contract, it had failed to meet the time limits set out in the contract because of the difficult economic situation in the world. The Respondent (Client) demanded payment of a penalty for non-performance of the contract and subsequently withheld the amount of the penalty from the payments in favour of the Claimant. Considering the amount of the penalty to be excessive, the Claimant filed a claim to reduce the penalty by recovering the amount of unjust enrichment from the Respondent.
16.05.2023
12.05.2023
Dispute on the recovery of a penalty for the delay in the performance of work under a work contract. All arguments submitted by the Respondent on the merits of the dispute were recognized by the Arbitral Tribunal as untenable. The claim was entirely dismissed since the period for incurring the penalty was within the moratorium on bankruptcy prescribed by the Russian Government Decree No. 497 of 28.03.2022. This moratorium prohibits accruing penalties.
28.04.2023
Dispute on the recovery of a penalty for violation of the terms of delivery of equipment for meeting rooms. The Respondent was certain that the Parties must have anticipated potential setbacks in the equipment delivery schedule due to the ongoing semiconductor crisis in 2021, though such prospects were not explicitly outlined in the contract. The Respondent's attempts to evade liability in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 401 of the Civil Code of Russia by citing force majeure caused by sanctions restrictions in 2022, were deemed invalid. The market's inadequacy in providing the necessary goods for the completion of the contract, compounded by the intricate geopolitical situation arising from para. 3 of Art. 401 of the Civil Code of Russia, did not fall under the classification of force majeure circumstances. Moreover, the contract's protocol for exemption from responsibility was not abided by. The satisfaction of claims was not affected by the moratorium on bankruptcy introduced by the Russian Government Decree No. 497 on 28.03.2022, as there was no dispute between the parties regarding claims for penalty recovery for the period covered by the moratorium.
12.04.2023
04.04.2023
03.04.2023
27.03.2023
15.03.2023
13.03.2023
07.03.2023
06.03.2023
03.03.2023
27.02.2023
20.02.2023
01.02.2023
23.01.2023
09.01.2023
A dispute under the contract for the performance of a complex of works for the construction of facilities. The contracting parties were the Customer represented by the Agent (Claimant) under the contract for the provision of project management services, as well as the Consortium represented by the Consortium Leader (Respondent 1) and the Contractor (Respondent 2). In connection with the works performance delay, the Claimant filed a claim to the Co-Respondents for the recovery of penalties for works performance delay, for violation of the interim terms of performance, and interest under Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the amount of penalties for the period from the moment Respondent 2 received a pre-trial claim till the day of the arbitral award. The Arbitral Tribunal defined the boundaries of its competence and decided on three main issues: (1) whether the creditor has the right to collect a contractual penalty, and if so, whether the behaviour of the creditor itself affects its amount; (2) whether there are grounds for the interest reduction; (3) whether interest is recoverable on the amount of penalty charged.
30.12.2022
23.12.2022
21.12.2022
19.12.2022
29.11.2022
21.11.2022
03.11.2022
24.10.2022
05.10.2022
After the commencement of arbitration, the Parties, at the initiative of the Respondent, proceeded to negotiations on a settlement of the dispute, however, the Parties failed to submit the documents for rendering an award on the agreed terms. The Tribunal suspended the arbitration until the Parties conclude a settlement agreement, or continue the dispute resolution essentially. Two years later, the Claimant reported that the parties failed to conclude a settlement agreement and requested to resolve the dispute. The original arbitrator resigned himself, the RAC initiated the arbitrator replacement procedure.
12.09.2022
A dispute from a contract for the supply of perishable goods. During the contract execution by the Claimant, the Respondent stopped paying for the delivered goods, assuring the Claimant that the debt would be repaid later, stating that the lack of payment was caused by the seizure of his accounts by the Federal Tax Service. Later, the Respondent refused to pay for the goods, since a substantial part of the goods received by the Respondent were of poor quality (rotten). Since the negotiations turn out unsuccessful, the Claimant filed with the RAC to recover the debt under the contract and the late payment interest under the Thailand Civil and Commercial Code. The Respondent failed to comply with the contract procedure for written notification in the event of defective goods delivery; nor did this evidence be presented during the arbitration.
05.09.2022
The Parties entered into a contract for the commissioning and testing of measuring channels. Due to the fact that the Respondent (Customer), among other things, was not satisfied with the pace of work performed by the Claimant (Contractor), the Respondent sent to the Claimant a notice of a unilateral refusal to execute the contract (termination of the contract) on the grounds provided for by the contract and paragraph 2 of Article 715 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (work is so slow that it occurs clearly impossible to complete it on time). Despite the fact that the Claimant initially disagreed with the grounds for repudiation of the contract and suggested to the Respondent in the claim correspondence to change these grounds to others, his claim to the RAC with the requirements to recognize the repudiation of the contract as invalid took place outside the limitation period established by the Civil Code to invalidate voidable transactions (limitation period – 1 year). At the same time, the Claimant not only argued that the Respondent had no grounds (motives) for repudiating the contract and even that they were far-fetched but also insisted that the Respondent's actions must be qualified as an abuse of the right. The transaction for unilateral repudiation of the contract must be declared invalid (void) (the limitation period is 3 years). The Arbitral Tribunal, taking into account the applicable standard of proof, examined the actual performance by the Parties of the contract (including the Parties' array of correspondence for six months), and did not see signs of dishonest behaviour in the Respondent's actions. In addition, the Claimant did not provide evidence of the Respondent’s violation of counter obligations under the contract, while the facts of the violation of obligations by the Claimant found their documentary evidence, in connection with which the Arbitral Tribunal refused to satisfy the stated requirements, not only on the grounds of the expiration of the limitation period (an independent ground for refusal of a claim).
09.08.2022
A dispute for the recovery of a penalty for a delivery time violation and for delay of provision of security for the performance of the contract. Both Parties agreed with the fact of delivery delay but argued about the exact moment the products were considered delivered, since the moment the Parties signed the consignment note in most cases did not coincide with the date of actual delivery. Regarding the second claim, the Respondent's argument that the penalty should be calculated on the value of products delayed on delivery, but not on the basis of the total price of the contract, was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal as not based on the provisions of the contract. The Respondent's argument that the penalty cannot be charged after the products have been completely delivered was also rejected, since even after the delivery of all the products, the Buyer could have quality requirements of the products, which should also have been secured. The arbitral tribunal reduced the penalty for the delay in the provision of security for the performance of the contract since by the moment of the dispute resolution, the penalty size exceeded the amount of the security itself by four times. Initially, the claim to recover a penalty for the delay in the provision of security of the contract was submitted till the day of the issuance of the award, but in the course of arbitration, the Claimant amend the end of the recovery period to a specific calendar day. For the purposes of determining the arbitration fee, the value of such a claim has been recalculated till the date the Claimant was no longer submitting the claim. As a result of such an amendment, the value of the claims decrease and the arbitration fee in the relevant part was borne by the Claimant in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 15 Rules on Fees and Costs.
27.07.2022
20.07.2022
09.06.2022
A dispute under the building contract for the recovery of the unjust enrichment. According to the Claimant (Contractor), during the work performance, it turned out that the terms of reference did not reflect the entire scope of work performed, which resulted in additional unforeseen costs that were not paid by the Respondent (Customer). According to the Respondent, the Claimant did not comply with the pre-trial procedure for resolving the dispute, as well as the procedure for agreeing with the Customer on the estimate of additional costs. During the procedural documents exchange, the Parties were able to resolve the dispute amicably.
27.05.2022
18.05.2022
30.03.2022
A dispute regarding a put option exercise arose between participants of a company. Two participants (Lenders) arranged a conclusion of an agreement with the company, under which it was granted a loan, while the other two participants (Managers) had to prevent the company from going bankrupt. To safeguard their interests, the Lenders entered into a put option contract with the Managers. According to the contract provisions, the Lenders received an irrevocable offer to buy the company’s interest. That offer could be accepted if certain conditions of the option are met. One of the Lenders found these conditions to have been met and accepted the offer. However, the Managers refused to pay for the company’s share, because the Lender allegedly had not confirmed certain events and had not conducted an independent assessment of the interest. After an exchange of documents, the Parties managed to settle the dispute.
04.03.2022
24.02.2022
02.02.2022
31.01.2022
The Parties concluded a contract for the provision of services for the carriage of goods. The Claimant (the contractor) notified the Respondent (the customer) of the arrival of the vehicles for the removal of the equipment, but on the appointed day the vehicles were not allowed to the loading area, after three days, left the place of waiting, The Claimant then applied to the RAC for a fine (penalty) for the delay (demurrage) of the vehicles and a fine (penalty) for failure to declare the goods for carriage. Considering the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal examined (1) the correctness of the calculation of the fine (penalty) executed by the Claimant, (2) the Claimant’s grounds for recovery from the Respondent of the fine (penalty) for failure to declare the goods for carriage in the absence of the Claimant’s refusal to perform the contract of carriage under Art. 5. 10 Federal Law of 08.11.2007 259-FZ «Charter of Road Transport and Urban Ground Electric Transport», as well as (3) proportionality established by law and levied by the Plaintiff fine (penalty) for failure to declare the cargo for carriage and fines (penalty) For the delay (demurrage) of the vehicles, the consequences of the Respondent’s breach of its obligations, taking into account the factors that the Respondent asked to take into account when deciding on the reduction of fines (penalties) under Article 4. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation
27.01.2022
25.01.2022
10.01.2022
30.12.2021
Back in 2018, a dispute arose between the Parties regarding the term of the obligation to develop the WDD (working design documentation) shall be executed. The Arbitral Tribunal back then decided that the time limit for the Respondent's obligation execution begins to run from the moment the Claimant sends the last comment/edit to the draft of the WDD. In 2021, the Claimant again claims that though all the necessary data for the development of the WDD was provided, the Respondent's still fulfilled his obligation with a delay. The Respondent again did not consider himself guilty of missing the term of obligation execution since numerous coordinating organizations (not a party to the contract) were sending additional comments to the draft or untimely provided information. The Arbitral Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, noting that, though the coordinating organizations are not parties to the contract, the Respondent still could not ignore them due to their role in the Parties' legal relations.
29.12.2021
29.12.2021
The law firm filed a claim for the recovery of $70,000 in arrears for legal services rendered to represent the Respondent’s interests in the LCIA. Under the contract, the Claimant’s remuneration was limited to the amount of $25,000, but due to the Defendant’s refusal of the contract, this limitation ceased to apply, according to the Claimant. The Respondent objected to the poor quality of the services provided by the Claimant: failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the LCIA or to suspend the process, proposed an inappropriate expert candidate. Having assessed the arguments of the Parties and the work done by the Claimant, the Arbitral Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent’s arguments, as the Claimant had not promised to achieve certain results in the course of the work and in the Arbitrator’s opinion it was practically impossible to achieve them. However, the Claimant’s claims were satisfied subject to a contractual fee limit, as otherwise the agreement of the Parties would be meaningless and would create legal uncertainty for the Respondent.
17.12.2021
Under the contract the Respondent pledged to perform certain works at the request of the Claimant in four stages. When the second stage works were not completed, the Respondent notified the Claimant about the impossibility to perform the work due to the fault of the subcontractor. The Claimant refused to perform the contract and filed a claim for the recovery of a penalty for the second stage work performance delay, minus the sum of a bank guarantee. In objections, the Respondent requested a reduction in the penalty, considering that (1) the Claimant himself interfered with the performance of the contract, (2) the penalty is disproportionate to the amount of work performed, (3) the liability of the Parties under the contract is unequal, (4) the amount of the penalty is disproportionate to the consequences of the breach of obligation, (5) the Respondent himself is in financial hardship. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that none of the Respondent's listed statements is supported by evidence, the discrepancies in the provisions on the liability of each of the Parties to the contract are not relevant to the resolution of this dispute, the disproportionate penalty for the cost of work performed is not one of the grounds for reducing the penalty, and the basis for reducing the penalty is its disproportion to the consequences of the breach of contract and not the severity of the burden of paying it for the debtor.
17.12.2021
The award demonstrates a complex calculation of the amount of the claim and the arbitration fee, taking into account the following: (1) the Claimant filed a claim for the collection of interest by the date of the actual performance of the obligation, the price of which was established by the RAC, taking into account the deadline for issuing a decision to calculate the arbitration fee; (2) the Parties amicably settled the dispute before the first oral hearing, resulting in a 50% reduction in arbitration fee.
17.12.2021
10.12.2021
The Claimant appealed to the RAC with a demand for the recovery of a penalty for violation of the delivery period and termination of the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal noted that the Respondent had breached the contract on the quality and completeness of the goods. The subsequent refusal of the Respondent to correct the breach on the ground of absence of working capital of the enterprise constitutes improper performance of the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal also concluded that the Claimant had the right to refuse performance of the contract, so that the contract should be considered avoided.
30.11.2021
22.11.2021
16.11.2021
29.09.2021
22.09.2021
The Claimant field applied to RAC with a demand for Respondent to recover penalties for violation of the terms under the contract, according to which the Respondent accepted the obligations to develop TOR (private term of reference), WDD (working design documentation), QP (quality plan), manufacture and supply of equipment. The Arbitral Tribunal found the asserted claims reasonable and didn’t agree with the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant demanding a forfeit for the delay in fulfilling obligations to develop TOP, WDD, QP, and to supply of equipment, seeks to impose on the Respondent burden of triple civil law liability. An award also assessed the Respondent’s reference to the actions of third parties, not parties to the contract, to the establishment of non-working days in connection with the spread of COVID – 19, as the reasons for the delay in the fulfillment of obligations.
14.09.2021
The Claimant claimed damages for late performance of obligations under the contract of delivery. The Respondent admitted the fact and the period of delay, but due to the difficult economic situation requested to reduce the amount of penalties and to use the double rate of interest of the Bank of Russia, which existed at the time of such violation. The Arbitral Tribunal considered whether the economic consequences of the pandemic were relevant to the stated claims for penalties.
07.09.2021
07.09.2021
26.08.2021
A dispute under the contract of delivery arising from a breach by the supplier of its obligations. The Respondent ignored all communications about the arbitration prior to the first oral hearing, which, in sum, the Parties' unwillingness to provide the necessary explanations and evidence was the reason for the postponement of the hearing twice. During the arbitration, the Parties disputed the date of actual delivery and the presence of obligatory accompanying documents complete with the delivered products. In order to establish the time of delivery of the products, witnesses whose testimony was taken into account by the Arbitral Tribunal in rendering the decision were brought by the Claimant. The Respondent sought an exemption on the grounds of COVID-19 but failed to prove a causal link between the COVID-19 pandemic and the impossibility or delay of performance.
24.08.2021
The Claimant applied to the RAC for the Respondent’s failure to comply with the terms of the Project and Research Contract. Later, the Respondent sued the Claimant for the annulment of the Claimant’s unilateral refusal to perform the contract and the recovery of the value of the received works and penalties for the delay in their payment. The respondent applied for unification of the Arbitral Tribunal under Rule pp. 1 p. 2 of Art. 2. 33 Arbitration Rules (if the combined arbitrations are based on the same arbitration agreement, the Board may combine two or more commenced arbitrations upon application by the Party). The Claimant had given its consent to the merger of the arbitral tribunals, and the Board had therefore decided on the merger under the rule under art. 1. 33 Arbitration Rules (all Parties to combined arbitrations agree with such association). Considering the dispute on the merits, the Arbitral Tribunal found no grounds to hold the Respondent liable for the delay in completion of the works but found evidence of the Claimant’s breach of the counterliability for transmission of the original data, which made it impossible for the Respondent to perform the work in a timely manner. Moreover, the Claimant interpreted the terms of the contract in contradiction with its literal content, by calculating the penalty on three occasions on the basis of the contract price rather than the cost of the overdue work.
16.08.2021
Having received the Respondent’s refusal to perform the contract of delivery in connection with COVID-19, the Claimant entered into a contract for the delivery of similar goods with a new supplier, then notified the Respondent of the avoidance of the contract with him and demanded the payment of penalties for the breach of the term of delivery and damages in the amount of the difference between the price of the contract and its replacement transaction. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the correspondence between the Parties did indicate the Respondent’s refusal of the contract even before its formal avoidance; the terms of the contract and the substitute transaction are identical; The expert opinion submitted by the Respondent was prepared in circumvention of the procedure laid down in the Arbitration Rules and is therefore not adequate evidence.
12.08.2021
At the time of receipt of the claim with the RAC, an application for bankruptcy was filed against the Respondent. Considering the size of the claims in the RAC case, the actions of the Respondent’s creditor, the Arbitral tribunal recognized its competence not considering in the actions Claimant signs of using arbitration to the detriment of the bankruptcy procedure.
11.08.2021
The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the decrees of the Mayor of Moscow on the introduction of the high-readiness regime do not eliminate the obligation of the lessee to pay rent (and the right of the lessor to receive it) but give the right to reduce it. In addition, the Arbitral Tribunal found that the landlord’s negative response to a request for a reduction of rent after a long period of time violated the interests of the lessee and constituted an abuse of rights.
06.08.2021
05.08.2021
Dispute from a sub-license agreement to grant the right to use Microsoft software. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the Respondent (the licensee) could not perform its obligations to the Claimant (the sub-licensee) because it had not acquired the relevant rights from the licensor and satisfied the Claimant’s claim to avoid the sub-licence contract, refund of fees paid and penalties for the violation of the terms of transfer of the right to use the software.
30.07.2021
The Claimant applied to the RAC in connection with the Respondent’s volution of obligation from the construction contract for the performance of a major overhaul. Since the Parties had disagreements about the identified defects of the work, the Respondent offered to conduct an appropriate examination of the results of the work but didn’t pay an advance to cover the arbitration coats. The Respondent asked to apply Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and reduce the amount of penalty but didn’t provide evidence of its disproportion. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it had the amount of penalty recovered didn’t violate the balance of interests of the Parties and consistent with the principles of reason and proportionality of liability for volution of obligation.
21.07.2021
The Claimant sought recovery of the debt and a penalty for the payment of the goods under the contract of delivery. The Respondent accepted the goods without comment but did not pay for the disputed deliveries. The panel noted that although the Claimant’s pre-trial claim against the Respondent contained 24 waybills, and the claim for 32 waybills, the Claimant had nevertheless complied with the claim in the circumstances of the case.
12.07.2021
11.07.2021
The Claimant applied to the RAC in connection with the Respondent’s volition of obligation to pay the permanent and variable parts of the payments under the lease agreement. The witness helped to establish the order and period of the rental (of lease) of the promises, since there was no other possibility to clarify these circumstances, including with the spread of COVID – 19 at the time of termination of the agreement of the Parties.
09.07.2021
The Respondent volition its obligation under the supply contract in terms of the delivery time and quality of the goods, which led to the Claimant’s filing a claim with the RAC for the recovery of forfeit, a fine, and costs for responsible storage of the unaccepted goods. The Respondent asked not to apply penalties for late supply, citing the COVID – 19 pandemic. Concerning the quality of the goods, the Respondent was convinced that the goods were supplied to the carriers in accordance with the terms of the contract, and in order to identify the moment of the formation of its defects, it considered it necessary to involve the carriers as third parties in the case.
23.06.2021
The Claimant applied to the RAC for debt recovery and penalties for the delay in payment of the works under the contract. During the arbitration, the Claimant applied to call witnesses, but the requirements are s. 45 The Arbitration Rules could not be observed, including the failure to provide information on witnesses, the subject matter of their testimony, their relevance to the case and their relevance to the merits of the dispute. The Claimant attempted to exclude from the case file the evidence submitted by the Respondent, claiming that it was falsified, but did not request an expert opinion. The Respondent requested that the notarial costs incurred in providing the evidence be apportioned, but the Arbitral Tribunal decided that they did not meet the criteria of necessity and justifiability. During the dispute, there was no disagreement between the Parties on the main issue of whether the work had been completed, but the Claimant continued to insist that the claims be satisfied, and the Respondent continued to object. Since the work actually performed by the Claimant did not comply with the terms of the contract, the Arbitral Tribunal refused to satisfy the claims in full.
16.06.2021
The Respondent breached the terms of delivery under the contract, which was the basis for the Claimant to apply to the RAC for payment of penalty. Prior to filing a claim with the RPAC, the Claimant had already received reimbursement under the bank guarantee provided by the Respondent to secure performance of the obligations under the contract. In its defense, the Respondent argued that it had only committed a breach in respect of the late delivery of the products, and that the simultaneous recovery of penalties and the bank guarantee was therefore contrary to the principle of one-time liability. The Respondent also requested the application of Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citing the disproportion of the deductible consequences of the violated obligations. In considering the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal also resolved the disputed issue between the Parties as to the date of the conclusion of the Contract in order to determine when the Respondent’s obligation to deliver arose.
09.06.2021
Having unilaterally refused to perform the contract due to the default of the Respondent, the Claimant applied to the RAC to recover the advance paid and the amount of the contractual penalty
09.06.2021
07.06.2021
A key element of the dispute is the disagreement of the Parties regarding the establishment of the time of responsibility for the violation of the intermediate deadlines for the performance of work under the R&D contract. Applying different rules and methods of interpretation of the provisions of the contract, the Arbitral Tribunal determines the meaning of the terms «term of performance of works» and «cost of works under the contract» to determine the contractual liability for the breach of terms of performance of works.
01.06.2021
The Claimant initiated arbitration for a 496-day delay in performance. The Respondent t argued that the rest days established by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation in 2020 should be exempted from the period of delay, but he was obliged to perform the work one year before the introduction of restrictive measures. There is no evidence that the delay is justified or that there are reasonable reasons for the failure to perform before and after the imposition of the restrictive measures by the Respondent. However, as the Claimant actually agreed to reduce the originally stated penalty by excluding the Russian public holidays (35 days), the Arbitral Tribunal found it possible to reduce the penalty. The full arbitration fee was assigned to the Respondent, taking into account the procedural conduct of the Parties.
01.06.2021
The Claimant sought the payment of the deposit and penalties for the delay in the start-up and commissioning of the line for the production of medical masks. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had failed to provide evidence of its proper performance, including documentation for the equipment. The Arbitral Tribunal noted that when the contract of delivery was terminated on the basis of p. 2 of art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the issue of return of goods is subject to settlement regardless of the seller’s submission of the corresponding claim.
24.05.2021
The Claimant applied to the RAC for replacement of the pipes supplied by the Respondent. During the arbitration, the Parties concluded that expertise was needed to determine when and why the tubes were defective. The review was not carried out because of a six-fold increase in the price of the review compared to the original stated value. In the end, the Parties managed to resolve the dispute peacefully.
29.04.2021
Due to the late delivery of the goods by the Respondent, the Claimant received a monetary indemnity under a bank guarantee and then sued the RAC for damages for breach of the delivery period under the contract. The Respondent confirmed the delay in delivery of the goods and agreed to the calculation of the penalty but counterclaimed for the difference between the amount of the bank guarantee and the penalty, as well as interest for the use of other people’s funds under article. 395 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Arbitral Tribunal considered the difference between the amount paid by the Respondent to the Bank on the recourse claim and the amount of the penalty under the contract to be damages recoverable and satisfied the Respondent’s counterclaim in full.
27.04.2021
The Parties managed to settle the dispute, which was to be dealt with under the standard arbitration procedure and misinterpreted the provisions of article. 8 Provisions on fees and expenses, referring in the Settlement Agreement to art. 5. 8 Provisions to reduce the arbitration fee in the case of an expedited arbitration procedure. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Parties' agreement on the allocation of the arbitration fee did not meet the requirements of the Arbitration Rules and was guided by Article. 13 The Fees and Expenses Regulations have independently distributed this burden among the Parties.
19.04.2021
15.04.2021
15.04.2021
The Claimant initiated arbitration for the Respondent’s breach of the time limit for delivery of the goods under the contract. The Respondent alleged that the time limit for delivery of the goods had been breached by its manufacturer, the choice of which had been made by the Claimant. The breach of obligation was caused by a combination of unforeseen circumstances: verification of the Claimant’s end-user of the goods to the sanctions list and the transfer of production from the United States to Canada due to the influence of COVID-19. In the Respondent’s view, these circumstances were circumstances of force majeure. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Respondent could not influence the regulatory obligations of third-party residents of foreign countries, and the control of epidemiological circumstances was out of the reach of the Parties to the treaty.
14.04.2021
In 2020, the Claimant applied to the RAC to recover from the Respondent the amount of principal and penalty for one day. The Respondent objected to the settlement of the claim but did not request a reduction of the penalty. In 2021, the Claimant again applied to the RAC for a penalty from the Respondent for the remaining period of the breach of obligation; this time the Respondent insisted on its reduction according to the rules of Article. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citing its disproportion of consequences of breach of obligations. Objecting to the reduction of the penalty, the Claimant also referred to the decision of the RAC Branch according to which the Respondent t imposed a penalty on its employer at the same rate and for the same result of the work, Liability for late payment of which is a matter of dispute between the Parties. In such circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal found no reason to reduce the penalty claimed by the Claimant.
13.04.2021
A claim was filed with the RAC to recover the debt for services under a freight forwarding contract, drawn up in Russian. The Parties agreed on the place of arbitration – Moscow (Russia), the language of arbitration – English, the procedure – expedited, without conducting oral hearings. The Executive Administrator defined Russian as the language of administration of the arbitration, since the Parties exchanged documents in Russian, but the Arbitral Tribunal pointed out the need for the documents to be available in English. The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the claim due to the lack of evidence of the fulfillment of obligations by the Claimant.
08.04.2021
Dispute from the sub-contract on the recovery of the cost of the work performed and penalties for the violation of the terms of payment for the work. The breach of the payment terms by the Respondent (Contractor) was caused by the actions of the Customer, which delayed the financing, which did not allow the Respondent to pay the Claimant (Subcontractor) in a timely manner. In order to ensure the balance of interests of the Parties, as well as compensation of the Claimant’s property loss, the Arbitral Tribunal considered that it was possible to reduce the amount of the penalty in article. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation and decided on partial satisfaction of claims, as well as proportional recovery of arbitration fee.
07.04.2021
The Respondent had delayed delivery of the goods and was therefore required to pay a penalty. In objecting to the claim, the Respondent invoked COVID-19 as the reason for the cancellation of the airline service, which prevented it from transporting the goods across the border in a timely manner. The Respondent also contested the application of the claim procedure for the signing of the claim by what it considered to be an unauthorized person. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s arguments, as it did not provide evidence of the impossibility of delivering the goods by any means other than air, and in case of doubt about the authority of the signatory to the claim, it could seek clarification from the Claimant.
05.04.2021
The Claimant applied to RAC for a recovery of the principal and a penalty calculated on the date of the award. The Respondent considered the penalty to be excessive and indecent, and requested the application of Art. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, pointing out the lack of evidence of the reasonableness of the amount of penalty. The Arbitral Tribunal applied Article. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation since the fulfillment of the Claimant’s claims in full would lead to their unreasonable benefit. The arbitration fee was imposed on the Respondent in full due to the delay of the arbitration.
29.03.2021
Twenty-six days before the end of arbitration, the Respondent was declared bankrupt, and the Respondent was subject to a summary debtor liquidation procedure. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that, as from the commencement of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor acting as respondent in the case, which was by law subject to arbitration by the bankruptcy tribunal, The Arbitral Tribunal lost its competence to consider it, and the continuation of the arbitration became impossible.
18.03.2021
The Claimant initiated arbitration in connection with the delivery by the Respondent of goods from a country of origin other than that specified in the contract, considering the goods as defective. The Arbitral Tribunal found that not every breach of the supply contract by the supplier could be attributed to quality violations. In the arbitrator’s view, on the basis of the letter of the contract, the country of origin condition was attributed by the Parties themselves to the name of the goods and was an additional description of the circumstances of the creation of the goods rather than their quality.
15.03.2021
The arbitration was suspended twice, due to the introduction of a state of high alert in the territory of Moscow, as well as at the request of the Parties to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The arbitration was suspended twice. The Arbitral Tribunal based the award on the terms of the settlement agreement of the Parties but adjusted the amount of the fee to be refunded to the Claimant as the Parties to the settlement agreement went beyond the calculated claims originally submitted by the Claimant.
10.02.2021
The Respondent delivered goods to the Claimant that did not meet the specifications and the Claimant therefore requested a penalty. In support of its position, the Respondent claimed that the requirements of the technical task were obviously not fulfilled, and also requested recognition of COVID-19 as a force majeure circumstance exempting from liability for the delay in delivery. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s objections, as the Respondent had examined the market before concluding the contract and admitted that it was possible to conclude the contract in the light of the available technical task. In addition, the Respondent failed to comply with the procedure for notification of force majeure. Nevertheless, guided by art. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Arbitral Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty, as the Plaintiff is a strong party to the contract and did not prove the occurrence of negative consequences due to late delivery.
02.02.2021
The Claimant appealed to the RAC to oblige the Respondent to provide electricity for the land plot sold to the Claimant. In order to secure the award's voluntary execution, the Claimant requested to appoint an astrent (court penalty). According to the Respondent, the act of transfer of property, where the Parties agreed on the Respondent's duty to restore power supply, does not give rise to rights and obligations, and the place of the cable break is located outside the land plot. The Arbitral Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent, obliging him to restore the electricity supply, and appointed an astrent in case of non-enforcement of the award, since otherwise there would be a risk of only recognizing nudum jus (an unsecured right).
01.02.2021
The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not provided adequate evidence of the existence of circumstances of force majeure in the territory of a foreign State in order to justify the breaches of its obligations. If the Respondent had delivered in a timely manner, such circumstances would not have prevented the performance of the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal also found no reason to reduce the penalty under art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
29.01.2021
At the time of the commencement of arbitration, an insolvency petition had been filed against the Respondent, which was subsequently declared bankrupt during arbitration, and bankruptcy proceedings were instituted. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear a dispute that went beyond the limits of the arbitration agreement. The bankruptcy trustee was notified of the opportunity for the presentation of the position and to participate in the oral hearing. The Arbitral tribunal has analyzed the possibility of departing from the Arbitration rules regarding the imposition of the full amount of the arbitration fee on the Claimant.
19.01.2021
A dispute the under the building contract for the recovery of a penalty for the delay of completion of work on the roof overhaul. Explaining the delay, the Respondent referred to the delay in submission of technical documentation by the Claimant, unfavourable weather conditions, and the Claimant's refusal to accept the work. The Arbitral Tribunal established the fact of the delay and researched the liability of the Respondent for this.
15.01.2021
The Claimant claimed damages for late performance of its obligations under the contract. The Respondent blamed the Claimant for the delay in the completion of the contract, pointing out that the Claimant’s prolonged failure to provide the original data was the direct cause of the delay. The circumstances invoked by the Respondent as grounds for exemption were corroborated by the evidence and testimony of a witness, a former employee of the Claimant, whom the Respondent deemed necessary to summon during the arbitration.
13.01.2021
Dispute from the contract on debt recovery, penalty, and interest under art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Respondent paid the arrears during the arbitration, asked for a reduction of the penalty under the rules of Article. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as declared the inadmissibility of simultaneous recovery of interest and penalty. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s arguments on the issue of interest and reduction of the penalty and terminated the arbitration in respect of the debt. However, in allocating the fee, it was taken into account that the claim for debt collection was justified.
11.01.2021
02.01.2021
29.12.2020
28.12.2020
08.12.2020
02.12.2020
30.11.2020
25.11.2020
18.11.2020
The Claimant appealed to the RAC with a claim for the recovery of debts and penalties under the subcontract agreement. During the proceedings, the Respondent disagreed with the claims and filed a counterclaim for penalties and damages for correcting defects in the works. The parties requested from the Arbitral Tribunal an additional period of time to discuss the possibility of concluding a settlement agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal took the arbitration decision on agreed terms.
13.11.2020
02.11.2020
09.10.2020
08.10.2020
05.10.2020
30.09.2020
30.09.2020
29.09.2020
14.09.2020
The Claimant submitted a claim to the RAC for recovery of debt and a fine for a delivery delay under the contract. When the RAC managed to contact the Respondent, he claimed that he had never been in legal relations with the Claimant, and the signature and seal in the contract were fake. The Respondent's statements were confirmed by the handwriting examination conducted in accordance with Article 44 of the Arbitration Rules, which was one of the grounds to recognize the contract containing the arbitration clause unconcluded. The Claimant disagreed with the results of the examination, though no reasons for his disagreement were presented. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded it has competence since the Parties exchanged procedural documents during the arbitration. Moreover, the Respondent explicitly stated his preference to defend his interests in the RAC. Since the award was rendered against the Claimant, the Respondent's costs for the protection of his rights in the arbitration, as well as the costs for the examination, are subject to be paid by the Claimant.
10.09.2020
07.09.2020
A dispute under a provision of legal assistance contract between Nektorov, Saveliev & Partners and a company registered in Belize (Central America). Examining its competence, the Arbitral Tribunal, using Swiss and Russian legislation on arbitration, resolved the following issues: (1) may a dispute be resolved by the RAC if a Party's Counsel is also a RAC arbitrator; (2) whether the arbitration agreement from the contract covers disputes arising out of another deal if the parties are the same and the deal and the contract are related; (3) may the Parties enter into the arbitration agreement by the Respondent signing a letter in which the Claimant suggests to resolve disputes at RAC if the Parties do not conclude a settlement agreement by a certain moment. Presenting its procedural position, the Claimant submitted expert opinions done by Viktor Gerbutov in Russian law and Constantin Khovrin in Swiss law. Regarding the merits, the Claimant proved the fulfilment of its obligations under the legal assistance contract, and the Arbitral Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay in full the legal assistance provided by the Claimant, as well as the penalty and interest under Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation inter alia after the date of the Award.
01.09.2020
26.08.2020
10.08.2020
31.07.2020
24.07.2020
16.07.2020
13.07.2020
30.06.2020
A dispute under the subcontract agreement for the complex of works on the major repairs of a multi-apartment building. During the contract execution due to the Respondent's inability to perform the works in full within the Contract timeframe, the Parties concluded an additional agreement on reducing the scope of work and the Contract price accordingly. After completing the works, the Respondent did not return to the Claimant the amount of the unused advance, which was the difference between the initial and final price of the Contract. Therefore, the Claimant applied to the RAC with a claim for recovery of the amount of unjust enrichment (unused advance), interest under Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and damages, namely expenses incurred by the Claimant in paying for the work, including VAT, as the Respondent did not reflect in his accounting records information that would allow the Claimant to exercise his right to a tax deduction. During the arbitration, the impact of COVID-19 restrictive measures on the consideration of the case was taken into account, all available measures were taken to notify the Respondent of the arbitration, in which he ultimately refused to participate, and given this fact, the Arbitral Tribunal requested additional explanations and evidence on issues relevant for the arbitration decision. The claim for recovery of unjust enrichment was recognized by the Arbitral Tribunal as fully legitimate, but the amount of interest under the calculation of the Arbitral Tribunal exceeded the amount claimed by the Claimant. However, due to the principle of dispositive regulation, the Arbitral Tribunal could not go beyond the stated claims. As for the damages, the Claimant failed to prove that the VAT amounts were not and could not be taken into account, that is, it represented his uncompensated losses.
30.06.2020
25.06.2020
23.06.2020
Appling to the RAC with a claim against the Respondent, the Claimant submitted an arbitration agreement of the Parties on dispute resolution at the RAC in accordance with the Arbitration Rules. Soon, the Respondent stated that the applicable rules were determined incorrectly since the Parties had signed a newer version of the arbitration agreement on dispute resolution at the RAC Division for Dispute Resolution in the Nuclear Industry in accordance with the Rules of the Division. Simultaneously with the applicable rules objection, the Respondent submitted its objections on the merits of the dispute. During the oral hearing, held to discuss the arbitration rules applicable to the dispute, the Respondent stuck to its position on the applicable rules, and the Claimant objected, stating that the document containing the newer arbitration agreement was not in its possession. As a result, the Parties managed to resolve the dispute amicably, although they misinterpreted Article 8 of the Regulations on Fees and Costs, stating in the settlement agreement that the Claimant is to be refunded 50 % of the arbitration fee from the RAC, but not 25 % how rules Article 8 of the Regulations on Fees and Costs. Since the Parties ignored the Arbitral Tribunal's suggestion to submit appropriate corrections, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the Parties did agree on the burden of paying the 25 % arbitration fee and assigned it to the Respondent proportionally to the claims satisfied.
08.06.2020
03.06.2020
01.06.2020
06.05.2020
29.04.2020
17.04.2020
In considering the dispute from the contract of delivery, the Arbitral Tribunal considered it possible to make an arbitration decision on the dispute in which the notified Respondent refused to participate in the arbitration. At a later stage, the Respondent would seek to set aside the decision in the competent court on the grounds that no notice of the dispute had been received and that it was therefore unable to express its position in the case. The Сompetent court, having requested the case file from the RAC, shall ascertain that, in fact, the arbitration notices were sent to all known addresses of the Respondent, in this connection, it will consider the arguments of the latter as invalid and issue an enforcement order for the enforcement of the RAC decision.
16.04.2020
15.04.2020
The Arbitral Tribunal defined the rules applicable to arbitration of a dispute do not fall within the purview the scope of the rules RAC Division for the Resolution of Disputes in the Nuclear Industry, outlining the criterion for determining whether a case belongs to a dispute in the nuclear industry.
16.03.2020
27.02.2020
The Claimant field applied to arbitration with a demand to recover a forfeit for violation of the term for the provision of services for cleaning the protected area. The Respondent cited force majeure circumstances in the form of incessant snowfall as the cause of his violations. The height of the snow cover at the time of the Respondent’s decision on the impossibility of continuing the work exceeded the climatic norm in this region of Russia. These circumstances, as well as the unscrupulous the Claimant’s behavior, expressed in the failure to sign an agreement on changing the terms of the provision of services, the Respondent qualified as the basis for refusal to meet the requirements, as well as to apply Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Arbitral tribunal, after reviewing the positions of the Parties, resolved the issue of whether the Respondent’s alternative defense could be based on the same circumstance.
27.12.2019
12.12.2019
06.12.2019
21.11.2019
A dispute under the contract of lease between JSC (Lessor, Claimant) and IP (Lessee, Respondent) about the debts and penalties recovery.
19.11.2019
The Respondent failed to supply the equipment on time as a result of which the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract and applied to arbitration with a demand to recover forfeit for delay supply equipment. The Respondent didn’t recognize demands referred to the introduction by the Claimants after the conclusion of the contract of changes in the equipment configuration, as the reason for the delay in its supply, as well as on the insufficient indication in the agreement of the requirements for the equipment. In fact, the Claimant didn’t make a change to the configuration of the equipment after the conclusion of the agreement, and Arbitral Tribunal found that the subject matter of the contract was exhaustively defined in the Appendices to the agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal considered Respondent’s position inconsistent and behavior – unconscientious.
28.10.2019
The Claimant field applied to arbitration with a demand to recovered a forfeit the delay in performance of refit agreement, as well as a fine for failure to fulfill the obligation to provide security for the performance of contractual obligations. The Respondent attributed the fault for the delay to the Claimant, indicating that the Claimant hadn’t fulfilled the counter–obligations in a timely manner. The Arbitral Tribunal considered that the evidence presented by the Respondent couldn’t serve as a basis for exempting him from liability for delay in the performance of works, however, found it was possible to apply Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Since the agreement specifies the Claimant’s requirements to the choice of guarantee giver and didn’t regulate the procedure for the Claimant’s agreement of the conditions of security and given the inadmissibility of turning the forfeit into a way to enrich the creditor – the requirement to hold the Respondent liable for failure to provide new security was declared illegal and not subject to satisfaction.
16.07.2019
Signing the amicable agreement the Parties agreed on the full compensation of the costs of paying the arbitration fee by the Respondent to the Claimant, though 25 % of the fee was returned to the Claimant by the RAC under the rule of Paragraph 3 of Article 8 Regulations on Fees and Costs. The Respondent also obliged himself to pay the Claimant a penalty in case of the fee compensation delay. The settlement agreement is a deal and is one of the ways of protecting subjective rights, to which the rules of Civil Law on contracts, including the rules on freedom of contract, are subject to application. Due to the principle of freedom of contract, a settlement agreement may contain any conditions that do not contradict the law or other legal acts, including when provisions are included in the settlement agreement that is related to the stated requirements but have not been the subject of litigation, which means that in the settlement agreement the parties have the right to provide for provisions that, in particular, go beyond the limits of the claim. The Arbitral Tribunal decided that the terms of the settlement agreement, including the term for the compensation of the arbitration fee by the Respondent and its liability for violation of such a term, do not contradict the principles of arbitration proceedings and the provisions of the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 50 of July 18, 2014 “On the Reconciliation of the Parties in the Arbitration Process”, applied by analogy in this dispute.
11.07.2019
A dispute under the supply contract about the recovery of the unpaid part of the cost of the delivered products and penalties for the payment delay.
01.07.2019
The Arbitral Tribunal investigated the arbitrability of the dispute since a monitoring procedure had been imposed on the Respondent, but the claims asserted by the Claimant did not relate to monetary.
27.06.2019
A dispute under the supply contract for the recovery of debt for the delivered products and the penalty for payment delay. The Parties settled the dispute by concluding an amicable agreement stating that the Respondent transfers material assets to the Claimant to pay off the debt.
27.06.2019
13.06.2019
05.06.2019
31.05.2019
The arbitral tribunal admitted its competence to resolve a dispute arising from a contract signed not by the director general, but by his deputy since the Respondent, referring to the signing of the contract by an unauthorized person, stated only a material claim to dismiss the suit, but not a requirement to terminate the arbitration due to lack of the jurisdiction.
16.05.2019
08.05.2019
22.04.2019
18.04.2019
09.04.2019
08.04.2019
04.04.2019
03.04.2019
The Claimant (Contractor) applied to arbitration due to the Respondent's (Customer) refusal to accept and pay for work under the API development contract. The Respondent considered the work was done improperly, the result does not meet the terms of reference and cannot be used for its intended purpose, and the API does not allow raising tokens from ETH and BTC accounts during the ICO. During the oral hearing, the Respondent explained that its employees concluding the contract did not possess technical knowledge and did not understand the sense of their actions. The expertise helped to conclude that the work was done qualitatively and met the requirements of the terms of reference, and the results of the work were suitable for their intended use.
01.04.2019
01.04.2019
26.03.2019
04.03.2019
The Arbitral Tribunal implemented an approach that allowed the costs of arbitration to be borne by the Respondent who voluntarily satisfied the claims after the filing of the claim since such costs should be borne by the Party to due to the conduct of which they arose.
25.02.2019
05.02.2019
22.01.2019
13.11.2018
30.07.2018
28.05.2018
04.04.2018
20.03.2018
