In Case number is Ф03-792/2010, the court heard an appeal filed by Hanseatic Lloyd Schiffahrt GmbH & Co. (Hanseatic Lloyd Schiffahrt) against a decision issued by a commercial court over a claim of the Amur ship-building yard (Russian Federation) to Hanseatic Lloyd Schiffahrt.

The Amur ship-building yard and Hanseatic Lloyd Schiffahrt concluded several contracts on construction, outfit and putting afloat of tankers. All of the contracts contained arbitration clauses according to which all disputes concerning the fulfillment of the conditions of the contracts should be settled in the "arbitration court" in London, England.

The Amur ship-building yard filed the claim with the commercial court in Russia seeking a declaration that the contracts were invalid and recognition of the yard's property rights to the building tankers.

Hanseatic Lloyd Schiffahrt objected to the jurisdiction of Russian courts, claiming that all disputes were subject to arbitration in London.

However, the courts of the second and third instance did not support the jurisdictional challenge having relied on Article 248(1)(2) of the Russian Code of Commercial Procedure which stipulates that disputes about real estate located in Russia, and rights to it, are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian courts. Since tankers are considered to be real estate in Russia, the courts found themselves competent to hear the case despite the arbitration clauses in the contracts.

This recent judgment appears to draw the line under the discussion as to the extent to which Article 248 bars arbitration. Most probably the position expressed in the foregoing case will be adopted by the other courts when resolving similar cases.