Private arbitration courts jurisdiction

Journal Issue:

Author Information: 

Legal Adviser of the Regional Economic Researches Institute.

Abstract: 

Present article is devoted to the problems of private arbitration court’s jurisdiction in Russia. Though the state also recognizes alternative jurisdiction in the form of the arbitration courts, however still treats it circumspectly as cases considered as mandative, public (administrative) is within the exclusive competence of the state courts. Observed mistrust to alternative forms of the legal proceedings, expressed in exclusiveness of the rights of the state on regulation of various relations and occupations, dooms it to wastefulness and inaction in groundless hope on the exaggerated talents of officials, citizens meanwhile are induces to irresponsible insistence and at the same time to indifference to common causes. Recognition of the private arbitration court’s jurisdiction doesn't contradict the constitutional act, but on the contrary substantially and completely connects to it and enters into the constitutional prospective. Author draws the conclusion that the state, for the general wellbeing, has to compete with the public mechanism of self-regulation, private arbitration courts being a part of which.

Keywords: 

arbitration court, arbitration legal proceedings, alternative jurisdiction, jurisdiction criteria, dispute on the right, legal regulation, Russia, Russian Federation.

REFERENCES: 
[1] Federalnyj zakon ot 24.07.2002 № 102-FZ «O tretejskix sudax v Rossijskoj Federacii» // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[2] Grazhdanskij processualnyj kodeks Rossijskoj Federacii // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[3] Arbitrazhnogo processualnyj kodeks Rossijskoj Federacii // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[4] Federalnyj zakon ot 27.07.2010 № 193-FZ «Ob alternativnoj procedure uregulirovaniya sporov s uchastiem posrednika (procedure mediacii)» // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[5] Nesterenko A.V. Kriterii arbitrabilnosti sporov po zakonodatelstvu Rossijskoj Federacii // Arbitrazhnyj i grazhdanskij process. № 8, 2005.
[6] Opredelenie Arbitrazhnogo suda Ulyanovskoj oblasti ot 11.01.2007 po delu N A72-8886/06-19/223 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[7] Postanovlenie Federalnogo arbitrazhnogo suda Severo-Kavkazskogo okruga ot 10 yanvarya 2008 g. № F08-8415/07 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[8] Opredelenie Arbitrazhnogo suda Altajskogo kraya ot 15.12.2009 po delu N A03-15952/2009 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[9] Opredelenie Arbitrazhnogo suda Vladimirskoj oblasti ot 29.07.2009 po delu N A11-5673/2009 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[10] Opredelenie Naro-Fominskogo gorodskogo suda Moskovskoj oblasti po delu N 2-1031/11 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[11] Opredelenie Arbitrazhnogo suda Omskoj oblasti ot 26.12.2011 po delu N A46-11285/2011 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[12] Opredelenie Leninskogo rajonnogo suda goroda Tambova ot 16.02.2012 po delu N 2-559/12 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[13] Opredelenie Zheleznodorozhnogo rajonnogo suda goroda Rostova-na-Donu ot 26.09.2012 po delu N 2-1749/12 // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[14] Osoboe mnenie sudi Konstitucionnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federacii K.V. Aranovskogo k Postanovleniyu Konstitucionnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federacii ot 26 maya 2011 goda № 10-P // SPS «Konsultant Plyus».
[15] Galushkin A.A. Pravovoe polozhenie tretejskix sudov v Rossijskoj Federacii.// Pravovaya iniciativa. 2012. № 4/2012. S. 3.