Russian business at the SPBILF was recommended to resolve international disputes in the arbitration centers of the Russian Federation and Asia

Speaking at a session of the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum (SPBILF), Anton Benov, Head of the Department for Alternative Dispute Resolution of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, emphasized that international commercial arbitration continues to be an effective way to resolve disputes. But after 2014, and especially since 2022, he noted, the situation began to “rapidly change”: sanctions lists expanded greatly, and a “culture of canceling Russia” emerged. According to him, “it has become difficult to predict” the correct and “impartial consideration of disputes” with the participation of Russian persons. In addition, the EU has limited the possibility of providing legal services to Russian companies, making an exception only for legal representation, but this is not always enough.

In this regard, Mr. Benov considers it necessary to draw business attention to Russian (the number of international disputes in them increased by 20% in 2022) and Asian arbitration centers, especially in friendly jurisdictions.

Many lawyers spoke about the turn to the East and the choice of Asian arbitrations at the SPBILF. Thus, Professor of the Department of Private International Law of the Private Law Research Center under the President of the Russian Federation Anton Asoskov highlighted the advantages of the Hong Kong Arbitration Center, as it has the status of a permanent arbitration institution under Russian law, which allows it to consider corporate disputes (on rights to shares and shares in Russian companies), and disputes over public procurement (from contracts concluded under 223-FZ). The advantage of this institution is that the parties have the opportunity, within the framework of their dispute, to apply to the courts of mainland China for interim measures, including the seizure of the defendant’s property.

In addition to the Hong Kong Institute, the partner of the Regionservice Bar Association, Maria Lyubimova, also singled out the Istanbul Arbitration and the Dubai Arbitration Center with its flexible rules for resolving disputes. However, when working with counterparties from the CIS, she recommended that disputes be referred to arbitration institutions in the territory of these countries, which “allows you to reduce costs” for lawyers and conduct proceedings within a reasonable time. At the same time, according to her, arbitrations from the CIS have “good statistics on the enforceability of decisions.”

Meanwhile, domestic arbitration also remains in demand. In the arbitration institutions of the Russian Federation in recent years, the number of disputes with participants from different countries has noticeably increased, and the amount of claims is also growing. Sabina Ganieva, Executive Administrator of the Russian Arbitration Center at the Russian Institute of Modern Arbitration, spoke about this at the SPBILF. In addition, according to her, foreign arbitrators are increasingly being appointed to disputes, including from the UK, France, Serbia, the Netherlands, and Pakistan. In today’s conditions, Ms. Ganieva recommends that businesses include several arbitration centers in the arbitration clause so that the parties have a choice of where to apply for dispute resolution.

Anna Zanina, Ekaterina Volkova