On 30 January 2012, the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation supported the conclusions of the lower courts that corporate disputes are not arbitrable in Russia (see Novolipetsky Steel Mill v Maximov, discussed in Legal update, Russian courts consider corporate disputes to be non-arbitrable). The court gave a narrow interpretation of Articles 33 and 225.1 of the Russian Code of Commercial Procedure (COP), which simply states that corporate disputes are within the "specific competence" of state commercial courts.

The situation regarding arbitrability of corporate disputes is reminiscent of that which existed in Russia until recently regarding the arbitrability of real estate disputes (see Legal update, Russian Constitutional Court confirms arbitrability of real estate disputes). However, with the latter the situation is much clearer now, after the ruling of the Constitutional court. It remains to be seen how the court practice regarding arbitrability of corporate disputes will evolve after the ruling in Novolipetsky Steel Mill v Maximov.

For a detailed discussion of arbitrability, see Practice note, Arbitrability in international arbitration).

In Ruling N 1831-O, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation confirmed the arbitrability of consumer disputes (see Legal update, Russia's Constitutional Court supports arbitrability of consumer disputes). The court found that arbitration of consumer disputes is not, of itself, contrary to the Russian Constitution. Further, the referral of such disputes to arbitration is not a violation of consumer rights, but rather an alternative venue for their protection.

In Case: No. А40-49223/11-112-401, the Russian Supreme Commercial Court declared unilateral (or one-sided) dispute resolution clauses to be invalid (see Legal update, Russian Supreme Commercial Court finds unilateral hybrid dispute resolution clauses invalid). The court ruled that the dispute resolution clause in question was invalid because it gave only one of the parties the right to choose the forum of dispute resolution. The position taken by the court went against earlier decisions of the lower courts which had confirmed the validity of such clauses (see Legal updates, Hybrid dispute resolution clauses: the story continues) and Hybrid dispute resolution clauses: green light?). The court did not provide any detailed reasoning for its conclusion and did not rely on any legal norm in Russian law when reaching its conclusion. Therefore, even though the court's approach is not uncommon in other jurisdictions (as discussed in Practice note, Hybrid, multi-tiered and carve-out dispute resolution clauses), it is significant for its failure to provide any reasoning which could justify such an approach in Russia. It remains to be seen how the courts will apply the conclusions of the Supreme Commercial court regarding invalidity of unilateral dispute resolution clauses in future cases.

In January 2012, the lower chamber of the Russian parliament passed amendments to the law on international commercial arbitration (07.07.1993 N 5338-1) (see Legal update, Amendments to Russian Law on international commercial arbitration to allow emergency interim measures). The main changes relate to the authority of arbitrators to grant emergency interim measures. The new law will also give the Russian state courts the authority to grant interim measures in support of any arbitration taking place in Russia or abroad. The amendments will come into force when the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament passes the second reading (see Anticipated developments for 2013 below).

The amendments to the arbitration law to allow emergency interim measures (see Top developments of 2012 above) will come into force when the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament passes the second reading. We understand that a date has not yet been set for the second reading, but it is hoped that it will take place during 2013.

In 2012, the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation found that corporate disputes are not arbitrable in Russia (see Top developments of 2012 above). It remains to be seen how the court practice regarding arbitrability of corporate disputes will evolve after that ruling.