Kemerovo, Russian Federation
The article deals with the arbitration court formed to resolve a specific dispute. One-party court, or the so-called "pocket arbitration", is a situation where arbitrators cannot comply with the principle of impartiality due to the fact that the arbitral tribunal is a structural unit of one of the parties or part of the same holding company. As a result of the reform of arbitration proceedings in Russia, the niche of "pocket" permanent arbitration courts has been filled with situational arbitration, where the party with a stronger negotiating position determine the arbitrator and the rules. This phenomenon is becoming popular in disputes between microfinance organizations and borrowers, which, given the particular sensitivity of this area, requires public law intervention. The freedom of the parties to the contract is limited in order to prevent infringement of the rights and legitimate interests of the economically weaker party. Arbitration model is liberal as it is based on the autonomy of will. Arbitration ad hoc has its advantages in unique disputes where the parties are ready to determine the figure of the arbitrator and the rules for considering the dispute. However, this institution demonstrates signs of distortion, which means it needs restrictions. The existing regulatory restrictions and clarifications were defined by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, but they proved ineffective in practice. The author proposes to ban situational arbitration in case of loan agreements with microfinance organizations.
arbitral tribunal, arbitration, independence of arbitrators, situational arbitration, arbitration rules, arbitration reform, public offer, customer credit
1. Galperin M. L. Arbitration results. Zakon, 2017, (9): 34–40. (In Russ.) EDN: ZRJEUT
2. Ruzakova O. A., Ruzakov A. B. Novels of the Russian legislation on arbitration courts. Economics. Law. Society, 2016, (2): 15–19. (In Russ.) EDN: XEHJAV
3. Artemyeva Yu. A., Ermakova E. P., Kovyrshina N. A., Rusakova E. P. Methods of dispute resolution in the different legal systems. Moscow: Infotropic Media, 2017, 424. (In Russ.) EDN: ZUMQJR
4. Morozov M. E. Limitations on ad hoc arbitrator's authority. Treteiskii sud, 2021, (3/4): 198–204. (In Russ.) EDN: NHOUJN
5. Kurochkin S. A. Towards the effectiveness of the new Russian arbitral legislation. Treteiskii sud, 2018, (1/2): 48–61. (In Russ.) EDN: USSCBU
6. Skvortsov O. Yu. A conservative model for arbitration. Zakon, 2017, (9): 60–64. (In Russ.) EDN: ZRJEVN
7. Inshakova A. O. Reform of the legal framework of ICA activity in Russia: prerequisites, conditions, perspectives. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2016, (3): 4–12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2016.3.4.12
8. Nosyreva E. I. Arbitration timing: advantage or disadvantage? Modus vivendi: arbitration and private law, comps. eds. Sevastianov G. V., Eremin V. V., ed. Lunaeva T. A. St. Petersburg: Redaktsiia zhurnala "Treteiskii sud", 2022, 206–218. (In Russ.) EDN: OUBJUQ
9. Kurochkin S. A. Arbitration reform in Russia: basic tools for evaluating the effectiveness of new legislation. Zakon, 2017, (9): 65–76. (In Russ.) EDN: ZRJEVX
10. Zasemkova O. F. International commercial arbitration in Russia: results of the reform. Lex russica, 2021, 74(8): 9–22. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2021.177.8.009-022
11. Sevastianov G. V. Institutionalization of the ad hoc arbitration in Russia. "Institutional" arbitration judges (arbitrators). Problems and tasks of arbitration development in Russia. Treteiskii sud, 2021, (1): 8–13. (In Russ.) EDN: JLIAGO
12. Gerasimenko Yu. V., Terekhova L. A. On the new procedure for the creation of the arbitration institution (introduction to review). Pravoprimenenie, 2017, 1(2): 207–211. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(2).207-211
13. Zaitseva A. G. Evolution and novelties of ad hoc arbitration in Russia. Zakonnost i pravoporiadok v sovremennom obshchestve, 2016, (31): 86–90. (In Russ.) EDN: WGWQZX
14. The history and modern trends in the development of the civil society and the state: the human rights aspect, eds. Gavrilov S. O., Gavrilova A. V. Moscow: Prospekt, 2019, 432. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31085/9785392296811-2019-432
15. Morozov M. E. The arbitral tribunal is dead, long live ad hoc! Treteiskii sud, 2017, (4): 49–55. (In Russ.) EDN: YMTIGK
16. Morozov M. E. Evolution of Russian judicial practice on ad hoc arbitration. Treteiskii sud, 2021, (1): 69–78. (In Russ.) EDN: IVPCLD
17. Skvortsov O. Yu. Arbitration of business disputes in Russia: problems, trends, and prospects. Moscow: Wolters Kluwer, 2005, 704. (In Russ.) EDN: QWIQST
18. Sevastianov G. V. The legal nature of arbitration as an institution of alternative dispute resolution (private procedural law). St. Petersburg: Redaktsiia zhurnala "Treteiskii sud"; Moscow: Statut, 2015, 450. (In Russ.) EDN: XRXZAB
19. Kurochkin S. A. Domestic and international commercial arbitration. 2nd ed. Moscow: Statut, 2021, 416. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34076/9785835417735
20. Demirchyan V. V., Novikova T. V. Institutional and isolated international commercial arbitration: review of practice and comparative characteristics. Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Juridical science, 2018, 4(4): 291–297. (In Russ.) EDN: YWMQEX
21. Musin V. A. Selected works. St. Petersburg: Redaktsiia zhurnala "Treteiskii sud"; Moscow: Statut, 2014, 455. (In Russ.) EDN: WKAQGP
22. Zykov R. O. International arbitration in Sweden: law and practice. Moscow: Statut, 2014, 285. (In Russ.)
23. Kosticyn A. V., Bormotov A. V. The pseudo-arbitration ad hoc. Ekonomicheskoe pravosudie v Uralskom okruge, 2018, (2): 107–115. (In Russ.) EDN: UVXEMT
24. Muranov A. I. On arbitration "novels" in two Russian laws adopted in December 2018: clumsy rhetoric about restrictions and an expansion of the authorities' discretion. Int'l Com. Arb. Rev., 2018, (2): 144–156. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32875/icar.2018.2.144
25. Sevastianov G. V. "Ecosystem of the Russian arbitration" and new arbitration reality. Treteiskii sud, 2021, (3/4): 21–30. (In Russ.) EDN: ZSZUFO
26. Anurov V. N. Competence of the arbitration court. Vol. 1: Admissibility of a claim. Moscow: Prospekt, 2021, 272. (In Russ.) EDN: NMFEML
27. Principles of private law, eds. Podshivalov T. P., Kvanina V. V., Sagandykov M. S. Moscow: Prospekt, 2018, 400. (In Russ.) EDN: YUMAJN
28. Muranov A. I. Comments on Russian judicial acts regarding denial of the ICC standard arbitration clause (Moscow City Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court case No. A40-176466/17-83-1232): psychological features of Russian judges in their perception of arbitration (comparative aspects). Int'l Com. Arb. Rev., 2018, (2): 299–316. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32875/icar.2018.2.299
