Challenging jurisdiction and anti-suit provisions in Russia
Produced in partnership with Alexey Belykhof of Lidings
Challenging jurisdiction and anti-suit provisions in Russia

The following Arbitration guidance note Produced in partnership with Alexey Belykhof of Lidings provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Challenging jurisdiction and anti-suit provisions in Russia
  • Determining tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law
  • Challenging tribunal jurisdiction pre-award under Russian law
  • Challenging tribunal jurisdiction post-award under Russian law
  • Attitude of the Russian courts to matters of jurisdiction
  • Anti-suit injunctions under Russian law

This Practice Note considers issues relating to arbitral tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law.

Note: the Russian court judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK.

Determining tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law

Russian law upholds the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, allowing arbitral tribunals to decide whether or not they have jurisdiction to hear a dispute. The principle is set out in paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Federal Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Law on ICA), which translates as:

'The arbitration tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction or to resolve any objections with respect to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement. In order to do so an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an autonomous provision. The decision of the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail the invalidity of the arbitration clause.'

Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Law on ICA states that a challenge to jurisdiction must be brought with the statement of defence in the arbitration, which translates as:

'Statement on the absence of jurisdiction shall be provided with the statement of defense. Appointment of an arbitrator by a party does not limit a party right to raise jurisdictional issue. A statement that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding its competence should be