KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2017, том 2, № 3

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW

Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

Journal President:  

Ildar Tarkhanov (Kazan Federal University, Russia)

Journal Editor-in-Chief:  

Damir Valeev (Kazan Federal University, Russia)

International Editorial Council:

Sima Avramović 
 (University of Belgrade, Serbia)
Susan W. Brenner 
 (University of Dayton School of Law, USA)
William E. Butler 
(The Pennsylvania State University, USA)
Michele Caianiello 
(University of Bologna, Italy)
Peter C.H. Chan 
 (City University of Hong Kong, China)
Hisashi Harata 
 (University of Tokio, Japan)
Tomasz Giaro 
 (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Haluk Kabaalioğlu 
 (Yeditepe University, Turkey)
Gong Pixiang 
 (Nanjing Normal University, China)
William E. Pomeranz 
 (Kennan Institute, USA)
Ezra Rosser 
 (American University Washington College of Law, USA)
George Rutherglen 
 (University of Virginia, USA)
Franz Jürgen Säcker 
 (Free University of Berlin, Germany)
Paul Schoukens 
 (KU Leuven, Belgium)
Carlos Henrique Soares 
 (Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil)
Jean-Marc Thouvenin 
 (Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense University, France)

Russian Editorial Board:

Aslan Abashidze  
(Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia,  
Russia)
Adel Abdullin  
(Kazan Federal University, Russia)
Lilia Bakulina  
(Kazan Federal University, Russia)
Igor Bartsits  
(The Russian Presidental Academy  
of National Economy and Public  
Administration, Russia)
Ruslan Garipov  
(Kazan Federal University, Russia)
Vladimir Gureev  
(Russian State University of Justice  
(RLA Russian Justice Ministry), Russia)
Pavel Krasheninnikov  
(State Duma of the Russian Federation,  
Russia)
Valery Lazarev  
(The Institute of Legislation  
and Comparative Law under the Government  
of the Russian Federation, Russia)
Ilsur Metshin  
(Kazan Federal University, Russia)
Anatoly Naumov  
(Academy of the Prosecutor's Office  
of the Russian Federation, Russia)
Zavdat Safin  
(Kazan Federal University, Russia)
Evgeniy Vavilin  
(Saratov State Academy of Law, Russia)

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

«KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW» 
(registered by The Federal Service  
for Supervision of Communications,  
Information Technology  
and Mass Communications in Russia 
on 17 November 2016  
(certificate number PI № FS 77-67763  
(ПИ № ФС 77-67763)) 

Publication:  
four issues per year (one issue per quarter)

Editorial office: 
room 326, 18 Kremlyovskaya St.,  
KAZAN, 420008 Russia

ISSN 2541-8823

The reprint of materials of the journal  
“Kazan University Law Review” is allowed  
only with the consent of the Publisher.  
Link to the source publication is obligatory.  
The Publisher or the Editor’s office does not render 
information and consultations and does not enter 
into correspondence. Manuscripts can not be 
returned. The Founder and the Publisher  
are not responsible for the content of 
advertisements and announcements. 

Opinions expressed in the contributions are those 
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the 
official view of the organizations they are affiliated 
with or this publication. 

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW

Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

Journal executive secretaries: 

Marat Zagidullin  
(Kazan Federal University, Russia)
Jarosław Turłukowski  
(University of Warsaw, Poland)

Editor of English texts:  
Randolph W. Davidson (USA, Italy)

Assistant of Editor-in-Chief:  
Elena Bazilevskikh (Kazan Federal University, Russia)

Journal team: 

Rustem Davletgildeev, Ruslan Sitdikov, Ivan Korolev, Maxim Voronin, 
Marat Shamsutdinov, Ramil Gayfutdinov, Ivan Novikov, Iskander 
Asatullin, Durmishkhan Afkhazava, Nikita Makolkin, Alina Astafyeva, 
Anastasiia Bychkova, Murat Kamarov, Kamilla Khabipova, Ilana Kochetova,  
Iuliia Ustkachkintseva.

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

Dear Readers,

I am delighted to welcome you to the third 
regular issue of the Kazan University Law Review 
2017. 
This issue of the journal presents articles on current topics in theory and practice of Russian and 
foreign law. 
The opening article by Vladimir Orlov and Vladimir Yarkov, esteemed scholars, our 
colleagues from Finland (University of Helsinki) and Russia (Ural State Law University), 
is about the specifics of recognition and execution of international arbitration decisions. 
This topic is extremely relevant today in connection with the ongoing reforms in Russia 
in the field of arbitration and arbitration proceedings. The authors of the article note 
that the new Russian arbitration law has improved the regulation of arbitration in Russia 
with respect to the system of internal arbitration by providing adequate rules for the 
organizational and procedural bases for arbitration, decision-making and termination of 
proceedings, “friendly proceedings” and recourse against the arbitral award, and also the 
rules on responsibility for the enforcement of the award. The provisions of the new law 
follow the UNCITRAL Model Regulations while maintaining some of the features that 
are typical only of Russian legislation in the field of enforcement of arbitral awards.
The article by our colleague Professor Dr. Michael Stürner, M. Jur. (Oxford University), University of Konstanz, Judge at the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, 
examines the role of the German Supreme Court in the system of civil justice. After 
a brief overview of the institutional aspects, the author devotes his attention to the 
subject of access to justice in the federal courts, as well as evolving judicial control in 
the area of appeal.
Russian law, and especially the science of criminal law, is the subject taken up 
by Anatoly Naumov in the article by this outstanding graduate of Kazan University, 
Professor of the Academy of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, 
who gives a detailed account of this field of law. It is fortunate for us that the author 
devoted his studies to the history of the formation and development of the School of 
Criminal Law at Kazan University. His article highlights the scientific traditions formed 
in Kazan and shows their role in modern criminal law, including the interpretation of 
the rules of criminal law legislation relevant today.
This issue’s Comments section contains a joint article by two of our colleagues 
from Russian universities, Dmitry Lipinsky, Doctor of Law, Professor, Togliatti State 

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

University, and Konstantin Evdokimov, Associate Professor, Irkutsk Law Institute 
(Branch) of the Academy of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. 
Their subject is comparative legal research devoted to the criminal law legislation of 
the Russian Federation and foreign countries covering responsibility for committing 
computer crimes. Comparative legal analysis was conducted by the authors at the level of 
the national criminal law systems (Russia, the USA, China, France, Germany, and other 
countries) and at the level of legal families: the Anglo-American (the UK, the USA), 
the Roman-Germanic (Russia, France, Germany, Italy, etc.), Scandinavian (Sweden, 
Denmark), and Socialist (China). It is noteworthy that the criteria for comparative legal 
study were: the source of law that criminalizes the commission of computer crimes as 
well as objective and subjective elements of the crime. 
Closing out the practical part of the issue, Conference Reviews contains descriptive 
pieces by lawyers from Kazan, who review two law events of this autumn: “Review of 
the Kazan International Legal Forum (KAZAN LEGAL, 14–16 September 2017)”, and 
“Review of the IV Annual Symposium of the Journal Herald of Civil Procedure: “2017 – 
E-justice and information technologies in civil procedure (29 September 2017)”.
I extend a warm welcome to each of you and wish you a stimulating and rewarding 
reading experience. 

With best regards,
Editor-in-Chief
Damir Valeev

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Damir Valeev (Kazan, Russia)
Message from the Editor-in-Chief  .........................................................................3

ARTICLES

Vladimir Orlov (Helsinki, Finland)
Vladimir Yarkov (Ekaterinburg, Russia) 
New Russian Arbitration Law..................................................................................6

Michael Stürner (Konstanz, Germany)
Access to the Federal Court of Justice in Germany  .......................................... 52

Anatoly Naumov (Moscow, Russia)
Russian criminal law at Kazan University: Scientific traditions in a modern 
interpretation. Kazan School of Criminal Law: traditions and innovations ........73

COMMENTS

Dmitry Lipinsky (Togliatti, Russia) 
Konstantin Evdokimov (Irkutsk, Russia) 
Comparative legal analysis of responsibility for the commission of computer  
crimes in the criminal law systems of Russia and foreign countries  ....................83

CONFERENCE REVIEWS

Alina Astafyeva (Kazan, Russia)
Murat Kamarov (Kazan, Russia)
Ivan Novikov (Kazan, Russia)
Review of the Kazan International Legal Forum, 14-16 September 2017  ..... 99

Alexey Bilalov (Kazan, Russia)
Anna Kalemina (Kazan, Russia)
Nikita Makolkin (Kazan, Russia)
Review of the IV Annual Symposium of the Journal Herald of Civil Procedure:
2017 – E-justice and information technologies in civil procedure  .....................104

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3

A R T I C L E S

Vladimir Orlov
Doctor of Legal Science, Professor, 
Department of Civil Law, Law Faculty, 
Herzen State Pedagogical University 
of Russia and Adjunct Professor, 
International Contract Law, Law Faculty, 
University of Helsinki

Vladimir Yarkov 
Doctor of Legal Science, Professor, Head 
of the Department of Civil Procedure, 
Ural State Law University, Honored 
Scientist of the Russian Federation

NEW RUSSIAN ARBITRATION LAW

DOI: 10.24031/2541-8823-2017-2-3-6-51

Abstract: The article deals with the new Russian legislation on arbitration concerning 
entrepreneurial (commercial) disputes, the process which is intended to be an alternative 
to judicial proceedings and, consequently, a means to reduce legal intervention in 
entrepreneurial activities. The new Russian Arbitration Law of 2015 has improved the 
regulation of arbitration in Russia concerning, in particular, the system of domestic 
arbitration by providing adequate rules on the organizational and procedural framework 
for arbitration, including the provisions on arbitration agreements, composition of 
the arbitral tribunal and its jurisdiction, on the conducting of arbitral proceedings, 
the making of awards and termination of proceedings, including the rules concerning 
settlement, on amicable proceedings and recourse against the award, as well as on liability 
rules and rules on the enforcement of arbitral awards. Furthermore, the new Russian 
legislation on arbitration contains the rules on the foundation and activity of permanently 
functioning arbitral institutions in the Russian Federation. Especially significant are the 

VLAdImIR ORLOV, VLAdImIR YARKOV
7

rules strengthening the position of institutional arbitration providing court assistance. 
The provisions of the new Arbitration Law have followed the UNCITRAL Model Law, 
preserving, however, some features characteristic of Russian law. In particular, this 
concerns the multitude of mandatory rules regulating domestic arbitration.

Keywords: institutional arbitration, ad hoc arbitration, arbitration rules, arbitral 
tribunal, proceedings, award, enforcement

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Arbitration concerning entrepreneurial (commercial) disputes, represented as 
institutional and ad hoc formations, is recognized in Russia and has recently become 
subject to changes introduced by new legislation,
1 including particularly the (Domestic) 
Arbitration Law of 2015,
2 which has entirely replaced the previous law on arbitration 
(of 2002); it has also amended the regulation related to international commercial 
arbitration.
3 Entrepreneurial disputes in Russia are basically subject to the competence of 
the state commercial courts (arbitrazh courts), the provisions on which are contained in 

1  This subject is covered in Orlov, Yarkov (2017) pp. 257–79.

2  The Law on Arbitration (Arbitral Proceedings) no 382-FZ of 29 December 2015. The text in Russian 
is available on the website of Rossiyskaya Gazeta: http://www.rg.ru/2015/12/31/arbitrazh-dok.html) 
and on the website of KonsultantPlus: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_191301/ 
(last accessed April 5, 2017). In English, the Law is commented on at http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/
lexispsl/arbitration/document/412012/5J1W-5K01-DYW7-W0W6-00000-00/New-Russian-arbitrationlaws and https://iclg.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-/international-arbitration-2016/
russia (last accessed April 5, 2017).

3  Arbitration was known in Russia even in the 19th century. The judicial system of the Russian Empire 
was familiar with it, since the provisions on arbitration were contained in the Charter of Civil Procedure 
of 1864. Arbitration procedures were very popular among entrepreneurs in Soviet Russia during the 
New Economic Policy era (1921-1928). Permanently functioning arbitration institutions—the Foreign 
Trade Arbitration Commission and the Maritime Arbitration Commission—were established in the 
early 1930s. In particular, the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission purported to serve the needs 
of Russia’s foreign trade. Establishment of arbitral tribunals for the settlement of economic disputes 
between Russian legal persons was allowed in the Soviet Union beginning in 1959. In modern Russia 
before 2002, domestic arbitration for resolving economic disputes was regulated by the Decree of the 
Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of 1992, whereas foreign commercial arbitration, meaning, 
in particular, the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC; the successor of the Foreign Trade 
Arbitration Commission) and the Maritime Arbitration Commission, is still subject to the provisions 
of the Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1993 (as amended in 2008 and 2015). The 
predecessor of the new law, the Law on Arbitration Courts in Russia of 2002, was intended to regulate 
domestic arbitration in Russia. For more on this subject, see, e.g.: Yarkov (2014), pp. 650–53; Butler 
(2009) pp. 184–90; Komarov (2001), pp. 87–94; Olshanskaya (2014), pp. 96–102. See also http://lawbook.
online/arbitrajnyiy-protsess-rf/kratkaya-istoriya-razvitiya-arbitrajnyih-7719.html; http://jurkom74.ru/
materialy-dlia-ucheby/istoriia-stanovleniia-arbitrazhnykh-sudov-v-rf; and http://www.tambov.arbitr.
ru/about/istorija_sozdanija (last accessed June 8, 2017).

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3 
8

the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of 2002 (as amended in 2017);
1 the code has also become 
subject to changes introduced by new legislation, in particular by Article 9 of the Law on 
the Amendments to Some Legislative Acts due to the Adoption of the Arbitration Law 
(Amendment Law of 2015).
2 The Amendment Law has wrought substantial changes to 
the Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1993 beyond the changes brought 
about by the Arbitration Law. 
In the Russian reforms of arbitration legislation, the UNCITRAL Model Law (as 
amended in 2006) has been followed in particular.
3 The main intention of the reform 
performed through the Arbitration Law is to improve domestic arbitration. The new 
arbitration legislation also updates the international arbitration laws of Russia that apply 
in cases where the arbitral proceedings are held in Russia (international arbitration seated 
in Russia) and introduces licensing requirements for foreign arbitration institutions.
The Arbitration Law contains 53 articles and is divided into 12 chapters, in which 
there are, in addition to the general rules,
4 including the provisions on the application of 
the Law and the basic concepts used in the Law, also the rules that apply to the arbitration 
agreement,
5 the composition of the arbitral tribunal
6 and its jurisdiction,
7 the conducting of 
the arbitral proceedings
8 as well as the making of awards and termination of proceedings, 
including the rules concerning settlement.
9 The Law also includes the rules regulating 
the recourse against the award
10 and the enforcement of this.
11 Furthermore, the articles 

1  Law no 95-FZ of 24 June 2002. The text in Russian is presented on the website of KonsultantPlus: 
http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_37800/ and on the website of Garant: http://
base.garant.ru/71295532/#ixzz4ggPQp2aR.

The Arbitrazh Procedure Code is unofficially translated in English. See http://www.wipo.int/edocs/
lexdocs/laws/en/ru/ru072en.pdf (last accessed June 8, 2017).

2  Law no 409-FZ of 29 December 2015. The text in Russian is presented on the website of KonsultantPlus: 
http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_191313/b5315c892df7002ac987a311b4a24 
2874fdcf420/ and on the website of Garant: http://base.garant.ru/71295532/ (last accessed June 8, 
2017).

3  Among the peculiarities of Russian arbitration law is that domestic and international arbitration 
are clearly differentiated even on the legislative level. The domestic law regulation is characterized 
by a multitude of detailed and mandatory rules such as arbitrator qualification requirements and 
rules on the operation of arbitral institutions. See, e.g., https://iclg.com/practice-areas/internationalarbitration-/international-arbitration-2016/russia (last accessed June 8, 2017).

4  Chapter 1.

5  Chapter 2.

6  Chapter 3.

7  Chapter 4.

8  Chapter 5.

9  Chapter 6.

10  Chapter 7.

11  Chapter 8.

VLAdImIR ORLOV, VLAdImIR YARKOV
9

of the Arbitration Law contain the rules on the foundation and activity of permanently 
functioning arbitral institutions in the Russian Federation,
1 the relation between 
arbitration and mediation proceedings
2 and the responsibility of the non-commercial 
organization at which a permanently functioning arbitral institution is established and of 
the arbitrator.
3 In addition, the Arbitration Law contains the final provisions, including 
the coming-into-force provision.
4 For the most part, the norms of the Arbitration Law 
are intended to be dispositive (default rules).
5 The Law on International Commercial 
Arbitration has content similar to the Arbitration Law, except for some details. 
The Arbitration Law regulates, under the provisions of its Article 1 on its scope 
of application, the order of foundation and activities of arbitral tribunals and arbitral 
institutions permanently functioning in Russia as well as the arbitration (arbitral 
proceedings). The provisions of the law regulating the deposit of arbitral awards, orders 
of termination of arbitration, and case records
6 and the rules on making amendments 
to legally significant records
7 are to be applied not only to domestic arbitration but also, 
according to Article 1.2 of the Arbitration Law, to international commercial arbitration 
seated in Russia.
8 The same concerns the rules on: 
− the foundation and activity of permanently functioning arbitral institutions in 
the Russian Federation;
9

− the relation between arbitration and mediation procedures
10 and 

1  Chapter 9.

2  Chapter 10.

3  Chapter 11.

4  Chapter 12.

5  In turn, the Amendment Law of 2015 (as related to arbitration) contains provisions concerning the rules 
of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code on the right to address arbitrazh (Article 4), the scope of jurisdiction 
of arbitrazh courts (Articles 27, 31, 33, and 38), the witness (Article 56), the request by the arbitral 
tribunal to the arbitrazh court for assistance in obtaining evidence (Article 74
1), the termination of 
the proceedings (Chapter 18), and corporate disputes (Chapter 28
1), as well as the proceedings on 
cases related to assistance and control functions of the arbitrazh court in respect of arbitral tribunals 
(Chapter 30) and the proceedings on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral 
awards (Chapter 31).

The Amendment Law of 2015 has also brought changes to the Civil Procedure Code of 2002, which 
regulates the resolution of noncommercial civil law disputes.

6  Arbitration Law, Article 39.

7  Ibid., Article 43.

8  The (Russian) International Commercial Arbitration Court (at the Russian Federation Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry; ICAC) is subject to the provisions of the Law on International Commercial 
Arbitration of 1993; the last amendments to the Law on International Commercial Arbitration were 
brought by the Amendment Law of 2015. On Russian international commercial arbitration see 
Karabelnikov (2013).

9  Arbitration Law, Chapter 9.

10  Ibid., Chapter 10.

KAZAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW      Volume 2, Autumn 2017, Number 3 
10

− the responsibility of the non-commercial organization at which a permanently 
functioning arbitral institution is established and of the arbitrator,
1 as well as the 
final provisions, including the coming-into-force provision.
2 
The scope of the Arbitration Law covers disputes between the parties of civil law 
relations, unless provided otherwise by the federal law;
3 the federal law may contain 
restrictions for submitting certain types of disputes to arbitration.
4 In turn, disputes between 
the parties of civil law relations related to foreign trade and other types of international 
economic relations may be subject to the application of the Law on International 
Commercial Arbitration and submitted to international commercial arbitration.
5 
The main concepts of the Arbitration Law, “arbitration” (арбитраж) and 
“arbitration proceeding” (третейское разбирательство), are used as synonyms 
and stand for the procedure of resolution of a dispute by an arbitral tribunal
6 that 
may consist of a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators.
7 In Russian law, the concept of 
arbitration is, however, problematic, since the term “arbitration”, which is translated 
into Russian as «арбитраж» or «арбитражный суд», is usually related to state 
arbitrazh courts, and these represent the commercial court system functioning 
alongside the general court system. Thus, in this article the terms arbitration 
and arbitration proceeding will not refer to the arbitrazh (or state commercial) 
court (proceedings) established to resolve entrepreneurial (economic) disputes.
8 

1  Ibid., Chapter 11.

2  Ibid., Chapter 12.

3  Ibid., Article 1.3.

4  Ibid., Article 1.4.

5  Ibid., Article 1.3.

6  Arbitration is defined in Article 2 of the Arbitration Law as the procedure of resolution of a dispute by 
an arbitral tribunal and of decision-making by it (arbitral award). 

7  An arbitrator is, according to Article 2 of the Arbitration Law, a physical (natural) person who is chosen 
by the parties or chosen (appointed) in the order, agreed by the parties or established by the law, for 
arbitral proceedings. The activities of arbitrators as such are not entrepreneurial activities.

8  The notion of the necessity of special expertise and procedures for settling commercial or economic 
disputes is as old as the history of the Russian state starting, in particular, from the Moscow period, at 
the end of which the New Trading Charter of 1667 contained provisions on the custom courts. These 
courts were followed by commercial courts, the status of which was determined in the Statute of 1832. 
Commercial courts existed in Russia until the Revolution of 1917. The necessity of the special judicial 
bodies, instead of administrative procedures, for settlement of economic disputes (between state 
enterprises and organization) became obvious in the period of the New Economic Policy, and new 
arbitration commissions were established in 1922. They were, however, terminated and later replaced 
by the state arbitrazh bodies, which were quasi-judicial bodies founded by the Soviet government and 
other high executive authorities. At the beginning of the 1990s, the Soviet system of state arbitrazh 
bodies was, in turn, replaced by the arbitrazh courts (similar to commercial courts). For more on this 
subject, see, e.g.: Yarkov (2014), p. 2014; Butler (2009), pp. 184–90; Olshanskaya (2014), pp. 96–102. 
See also http://lawbook.online/arbitrajnyiy-protsess-rf/kratkaya-istoriya-razvitiya-arbitrajnyih-7719.
html and http://jurkom74.ru/materialy-dlia-ucheby/istoriia-stanovleniia-arbitrazhnykh-sudov-v-rf and 
http://www.tambov.arbitr.ru/about/istorija_sozdanija (last accessed June 8, 2017).

VLAdImIR ORLOV, VLAdImIR YARKOV
11

Settlement,
1 the rules concerning which are contained in the provisions on the termination 
of arbitral proceedings, and mediation (procedure),
2 as related to arbitrazh proceedings in 
the Arbitration Law,
3 are presented in this article as being forms of amicable proceedings 
(примирительные процедуры).
4 
The Arbitration Law governs, generally, unless otherwise provided by the federal law, 
both arbitral tribunals administered by a permanent arbitration institution
5 and ad hoc 
tribunals formed by the parties to resolve a concrete dispute.
6 However, the Law makes 
a clear distinction between permanent arbitral institutions and ad hoc tribunals, and 
the formation and activity of permanently functioning arbitral institutions is subject 
to special provisions of the Arbitration Law. But the Law also contains the provisions 
regulating arbitration procedure followed by both arbitral tribunals administered by 
a permanent arbitration institution and ad hoc tribunals, where differences are also 
presented. 

1  In Russian legal doctrine, settlement (мировое соглашение) is usually regarded as a specific civil 
law agreement that is aimed at final resolution of the dispute between the parties, is concluded 
during the course and within the framework of judicial proceedings, and is subject to judicial 
enforcement proceedings. See, e.g., Yarkov (2002), pp. 35–45; Kovalenko, A.G., Mohova A.A., Filippova 
(2014), p. 142; Andreeva (2015), pp. 556–61; Beltyukova (2016), pp. 684-86.

2  Mediation proceedings (процедура медиации) are, under the law regulating mediation of 2010, 
a means to settle disputes through the assistance of a mediator on the basis of a voluntary agreement 
of the parties in order to achieve a satisfactory solution. A mediator is defined, in turn, in the law as an 
independent physical (natural) person who is invited by the parties to assist them as an intermediary 
in finding the solution based on the merits of the case. As distinguished from mediation, conciliation 
proceedings (согласительные процедуры), where the conciliator plays a relatively direct role in the 
actual resolution of a dispute and even advises the parties on certain solutions by making proposals for 
settlement, are known in the constitutional and criminal law of Russia. See, e.g., http://www.jourclub.
ru/33/1800/7/ and http://pandia.ru/text/77/339/92263.php (last accessed June 8, 2017).

3  Arbitration Law, Article 49.

4  Amicable proceedings (примирительные процедуры) represent means of alternative dispute 
resolution. They are alternatives to judicial proceedings, which are based on voluntary expressions 
of the will of the parties to the dispute and aimed at achieving a solution that is satisfactory to them. 
Russian civil procedural law and legal doctrine are familiar, particularly, with such means of alternative 
dispute resolution as negotiation (переговоры), reconciliation (сверка расчетов), mediation 
(медиация), and judicial settlement (судебное примирение) as well as amicable settlement (мировое 
соглашение). See, e.g., the Concept of a Single Civil Procedure Code of 2014. http://www.consultant.ru/
document/cons_doc_LAW_172071/286c4f987b98907587862bc899c9b1c30c11321d/ (last accessed 
June 8, 2017).

5  Administration of arbitration is defined in Article 2 of the Arbitration Law as the execution of 
a permanent arbitration institution of the functions of organizational support to arbitration, including 
assurance of the procedures of selection, nomination, or challenge of arbitrators, record keeping, 
arrangement of collection and distribution of arbitration charges, except for the direct dispute 
settlement functions of the arbitral tribunal.

6  Ibid., Article 1.5.