International Litigation and Arbitration Practice


Enforcing within Russia a decision adopted by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission The lawyers of the practice provided support to a major motor car producer in a project that involved having a decision of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission recognised and enforced within Russia. Under the Commission's decision, over EUR 1.4 million of an advance payment had been awarded against the debtor, together with interest for the late repayment of the advance payment under an agreement for the supply of equipment which was terminated afterwards.
During the hearing, the debtor was trying to interfere with the recognition and enforcement of the decision, citing that it had not been properly notified of the arbitration proceedings and alleging that the decision contradicted public policy in Russia. Our lawyers in turn proved that the debtor was notified properly and on a timely basis of the appointment of the arbitrators and of the time and place of the arbitration. It also had an opportunity to make its own submissions and to participate in the arbitration proceedings. Moreover, our specialists convinced the courts that the enforcement of the decision would not contradict the public policy of Russia because Russian civil and commercial procedure legislation provides for the possibility to recover an advance payment when a supply agreement is terminated (if the goods have not been supplied), together with interest for late repayment of the advance payment and also court expenses. As a result, the court of the first instance and the cassation court agreed with our position and recognised as ungrounded the arguments of the debtor. 
<br />
Recovered for our client debt of USD 350,000 under a supply agreement The lawyers of the practice managed to recover debt under a supply agreement for our client, a major producer of home decoration materials.
The debt that totalled USD 350,000, which took the form of an unearned advance payment plus interest. The dispute was considered in the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry and involved the application of the provisions of the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods. The project is interesting from the standpoint of the ICCA’s practice being formed and from the standpoint of the arbitrators assessing evidence provided in the form of e-mail correspondence with attachments. 
<br />
Successfully represented a client in a dispute worth USD 10.5 million in the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce We represented a Client in the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in a dispute with a counterparty arising from a contract under Russian law for the supply of broiler hatching eggs.
The dispute was over a debt of UDS 500,000, which our Client’s claim sought to recover. The counterparty issued a counterclaim seeking compensation of alleged losses of USD 10 million. The Client’s claim was upheld; the counterclaim was rejected. The direct involvement of Pepeiaev Group’s lawyers in the arbitration in Stockholm demonstrates our team’s wide capabilities. The project involved: drafting all the procedural documents, speaking English during the hearings, working with witnesses (preparing and interrogating the Client’s witnesses, cross-examining the counterparty’s witnesses), and working in close cooperation with our Client's Swedish lawyers engaged for the arbitral proceedings. The case was considered under Swedish arbitration legislation; aspects of English law were applied in the hearing to the concept of liquidated damages (i.e. those agreed in advance).
<br />
Claims worth over USD 895,000 raised against our client were dismissed The lawyers in Pepeliaev Group’s dispute resolution practice successfully represented a major telecommunication company at the International Commercial Arbitration Court under the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The case involved a dispute with a counterparty under a contract for services which was governed by German law. The claimant submitted a claim against the client to recover debt for international telecommunication services provided in an amount exceeding USD 895,000. The Claimant’s claims were based on two agreements. Of these, one is governed by Russian law and contains a jurisdiction clause that all disputes should be submitted for consideration to the State Commercial (‘Arbitration’) Court for the city of Moscow. The second agreement is governed by German law and, in our client's opinion, contains an ad hoc arbitration clause, which does not allow a conclusion to be made that the Parties had agreed that the International Court of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation will be the arbitration institute to consider contractual disputes. Owing to the well-grounded position developed by our specialists the claimant reduced the amount of its claims to USD 648,000 to the extent based on the agreement with a jurisdiction clause, agreeing that this part of the dispute was outside of the competence of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The client's position in essence was based on the fact that the claimant had missed the limitation period and that there were no grounds to reinstate (interrupt or suspend) the limitation period pursuant to the applicable provisions of the German Civil Code. The panel of the tribunal concluded that it had the competence to consider the part of the dispute asserted by the claimant; however, the panel agreed with our client’s arguments that the limitation period had been missed, and based on this fact the claims were dismissed. The project is interesting in terms of learning aspects of German legislation touched upon in the dispute.
<br />

Вход | Регистрация


Click here to subscribe our English newsletters