Arbitration Court
We thoroughly examine all case circumstances, clarify the powers and rules of the chosen arbitration court. We formulate the legal strategy, handle pre-arbitration claims, and represent our clients' interests until the arbitration award is fully enforced.
Russian energy company (NDA)
60 550 197 ₽
Protect the Client's interests in arbitration court regarding the termination of the service agreement and the recovery of expenses actually incurred by the counterparty and penalties.
Environmental operator (NDA)
₽2 million
Representation of client interests in an arbitration court regarding a dispute with a counterparty (a Russian development company) for the recovery of debt under a service agreement.
Dispute over electricity transmission debt: debt recovery and rejection of defendant's arguments
A major grid company, owner of unified national electricity grid facilities, provided electricity transmission services to its counterparty in full for almost a year. At the end of each billing period, the parties signed acts of rendered services without any disagreements. The Defendant never raised any claims regarding the volume or quality of services. Despite this, payment was systematically not received. The claims sent by the Plaintiff remained unsatisfied. In response to each claim, the Defendant maintained the same position: the debt would be repaid once a company affiliated with the Plaintiff – an independent legal entity not a party to the contract – settled its separate obligation with the Defendant. Alternatively, the Defendant proposed a set-off of claims, to which the Plaintiff was not a party, or to await the approval of a settlement agreement with a third party. The total amount of claims exceeded 26 million rubles: principal debt for ten billing periods and penalties calculated at the agreed contractual rate. The objectives were the full recovery of the debt, legal refutation of the set-off arguments, and preventing an attempt to delay the proceedings by challenging the arbitration clause after the arbitration had already commenced.
- Arguments for set-off. The Defendant's key argument was based on the conflation of two independent contractual relationships. The Plaintiff's position was as follows: the third party's obligation exists under a separate contract to which the Plaintiff is not a party; pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 308 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, this obligation does not entail any legal consequences for the relations under the disputed contract. Accordingly, neither the expected receipt of money from the third party nor the proposed set-off can serve as a basis for the Defendant's non-performance of its own monetary obligation to the Plaintiff. The arbitral tribunal agreed with this position and rejected the set-off arguments as legally untenable.
- Estoppel principle and an attempt to suspend arbitration. After the oral hearing was concluded, the Defendant attempted a procedural maneuver: it applied to the state commercial court with an application to declare the contract's arbitration clause null and void and simultaneously petitioned for the suspension of the arbitration proceedings. Meanwhile, during the arbitration, the Defendant had independently submitted a detailed response on the merits of the dispute, raised no objections against the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction, and thereby implicitly confirmed the validity of the arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal qualified the subsequent challenge to the clause as inconsistent and bad-faith conduct, incompatible with paragraphs 2, 5 of Article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, applied the estoppel principle, and denied the suspension of the proceedings.
- Penalties and moratorium. The arbitral tribunal differentiated between periods: during the moratorium period, the accrual of penalties was denied, while for the remaining period, it was granted. Additionally, penalties were awarded at a rate of 1/130 of the key rate of the Bank of Russia for each day of delay until the date of actual payment of the debt.
Alleged Defects: Landlord's Defense and Full Recovery of Contractual Penalties
The tenant occupied an office space of approximately 160 sq.m. in a Class A business center in Moscow. Three months later, without sending any written claims to the landlord, the tenant notified them of early termination of the lease agreement, citing significant defects in the premises (ventilation, lighting, leaks), and filed a lawsuit to recover approximately 1.9 million rubles. The objective was to protect the landlord from the claims made and to recover counter contractual penalties.
- Premises Defects. At the landlord's request, the Arbitration Court appointed an independent construction and technical expert examination, which did not confirm the existence of significant defects preventing the use of the premises for their intended purpose. The tenant's pre-trial expert opinion was discredited: it was prepared without inspecting the premises, based solely on materials independently selected by the tenant. The court ruled that Article 612, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was inapplicable — there were no legal grounds for unilateral termination.
- Contract Termination Date. By ceasing to pay rent, the tenant granted the landlord the right to extrajudicial termination of the agreement, which the landlord exercised. The Arbitration Court recognized the contract termination date as the expiration date of the 60-day notice period — July 15, 2025. The tenant's actual departure on May 30, 2025, had no legal significance: early vacation of the premises does not terminate the obligation to pay rent (Paragraph 13 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated January 11, 2002, No. 66).
- Counterclaim. Based on the terms of the agreement, the following were recovered: rent arrears for the period up to July 15, 2025 — 450,000 rubles; penalty for late payment (0.5% per day) — 225,000 rubles; penalty for violating the 60-day notice period for termination (45 days overdue) — 209,250 rubles; fine for allowing the management company into the premises without the landlord's written consent — 10,000 rubles. The court verified the calculations, found them correct, and saw no grounds for reducing the penalties under Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Recovery of Lease Arrears: Arbitration Proceedings
Our client, the landlord of a 456 sq.m. commercial property in Moscow, faced systematic evasion by the tenant from fulfilling monetary obligations under two lease agreements. Starting May 2024, the tenant stopped paying rent, and from July 2024, ceased utility payments. Upon the property's return, damage to load-bearing structures and finishes was discovered. Additionally, the tenant failed to transfer the outstanding portion of the security deposit for the second agreement. The objective was to promptly initiate arbitration, build a strong evidentiary base, and secure full satisfaction of claims, despite the opponent's procedural evasion of obligations.
- Forum Selection and Analysis of Arbitration Clauses. A comparative analysis of the terms of both agreements was conducted. It was determined that the clause in the first agreement grants the claimant the right to choose between arbitration and state court; in accordance with the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, such wording does not create an imbalance. A decision was made to file a claim with the Arbitration Center at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RUIE), consolidating claims under both agreements.
- Preparation and Filing of the Statement of Claim. A statement of claim was prepared with a detailed calculation of the debt for each period of delay. During the proceedings, the claims were amended upwards: an additional claim was made for the recovery of the unpaid portion of the security deposit. Proper notification of the opponent was ensured at all known addresses, including the address from the arbitration agreement, the address from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (EGRUL), and the addresses specified in the agreements.
- Participation in the Hearing and Neutralizing Procedural Evasion. During the hearing, conducted via video conference, the client's representative supported the amended claims and answered the arbitrator's questions. The tenant failed to appear and did not submit a response. The fact of evasion from receiving correspondence was argued as a procedural risk of the opponent themselves, citing Article 165.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and clarifications from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
- Legal Justification for Each Component of the Claim. The following were consistently substantiated: (a) rent arrears — under Articles 309, 310, 614 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; (b) utility arrears — based on the terms of the agreements; (c) a penalty of 0.1% for each day of delay, continuing until the date of actual performance; (d) the cost of damage repair — under Articles 15, 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the bilateral return act; (e) the unpaid portion of the security deposit and the legality of its retention as a penalty in case of unilateral termination of the agreement due to the tenant's fault.