Magomed Gasanov

Magomed Gasanov

Partner, Advocate, PhD in Law
Magomed Gasanov

Chambers Europe

He’s very communicative, very fast at replying, very hands-on and also quite creative.

Biography
Recent work
Publications and Insights
Rankings and awards

Magomed Gasanov is a Partner of Dispute Resolution, Restructuring and Insolvency Practices, and Head of White Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations in ALRUD Law Firm.

The main expertise of Magomed is support of complex court cases which include representation of client’s interests in Russian state courts of all instances (arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction) and international arbitration tribunals in a wide range of economic disputes, including real estate, corporate disputes and bankruptcy proceedings.

Furthermore, Magomed actively participates in internal investigations and inspections of government bodies. He has extensive experience in advising clients on the issues of criminal law and representation of clients at all stages of criminal proceedings on economic crimes.

Magomed also has vast experience in advising clients on the issues of protection of real estates and anti-corruption compliance.

Magomed graduated from Lomonosov Moscow State University, faculty of law. He is PhD in Law (2011). Magomed joined ALRUD law firm in 2010.

Magomed is an advocate, a member of the Moscow City Bar Association, the International Bar Association (IBA) and American Bar Association (ABA).

Include advising:

One of the largest European railway operators

in the dispute on restoration of corporate control in the Russian subsidiary.

An industrial client (Germany)

in court proceedings at the ICAC in the dispute on recovering indebtedness from Russian leading mining and steel corporation, a counterparty to the sale-purchase agreement.

The worldwide leader in the distance-selling sphere

in the several interconnected disputes connected with protection of the lease title to the land plot for construction of the logistics complex.

The major relocation services company

on the issues of foreclosure on a charge. Received one of the first executive notes of the notary on foreclosure on a charge in Russia.

The interested persons (auction organizer, action winners)

on the case on disputing of the results of the biggest auction in Russia on selling of the lease title to the wood land plots in Moscow region.

Intereuropa d.d. (major logistics services company, Slovenia)

in a court hearing on invalidation of the land plot (39 ha) sale-purchase agreements.

The largest exhibition centre,

the territory of which is occupied by more than 300 private owners, in several tens of disputes relating to acquisition of rights to land plots being in the state ownership.

A guide to contract work during the crisis
In times of the ongoing crisis, associated with the spread of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), and the introduction of epidemiological requirements and restrictions, many businesses have faced difficulties with contractual performance, including the failure in supply, cancellation of scheduled events and often cutbacks in profits and the impossibility to perform monetary obligations. In such a situation, companies are forced to decide the future of concluded contracts, at short notice, and may seek legal means to properly perform their obligations, or to distribute the risks relating to suspension, or termination, of obligations that have become difficult, or impossible, to perform. This guide does not purport to cover all possible situations regarding the failure to perform commercial contracts during the crisis. However, we have done our best to collect answers to the most common legal issues about contract work, during financial and other shocks faced by Russian companies and their foreign partners. 1. What to do with a contract, performance of which has become impossible, or unprofitable, in times of the crisis? Depending on the specific circumstances, the contract can be terminated due to the impossibility of performance (Articles 416 and 417 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), amended, or terminated, due to a material change of circumstances (Article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). You can suspend performance and exclude liability for a delay due to ‘force majeure’ (Clause 3 of Article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), or restructure the obligations of the parties, by modifying the terms of the contract (on price, terms, performance, etc.), or by terminating it (unilateral refusal, set-off, novation, compensation for release from obligations etc.). The set of tools, and the choice of a specific instrument, depends both on the conditions of the concluded contract and on the actual circumstances of its performance. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the applicable legislation and enforcement practices, as well as to ensure proper formalization, in order to exclude the risk of subsequent judicial challenge. 2. In what cases, and how, can a contract be terminated due to the impossibility of its performance? The occurrence of force majeure circumstances does not in itself terminate the obligation if performance remains possible after such circumstances have ceased to exist. However, in cases where performance of an obligation is hindered by physical impossibility (that is, the obligation from the contract cannot be objectively performed by any person1), or legal impossibility (when the obligation can be physically performed, but this will be a violation of an act of a state authority, or local government), such obligation shall terminate automatically. Physical impossibility includes, in particular, the loss of an individually-defined object intended for transfer, or use, under the contract. Legal impossibility includes the introduction of export, or import, restrictions. It is important that the circumstance that led to the impossibility of performance of the contract arises after its conclusion, and does not depend on any of the parties. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the “Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) No. 1 in the Russian Federation", approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 21th, 2020 (“Review No. 1”), confirmed that the spread of novel coronavirus infection, and the restrictive measures taken in connection with this, could lead to the termination of contractual obligations due to the complete, or partial, impossibility to perform them, on the basis of Articles 416 and 417 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. To terminate the contract due to the impossibility of its performance, prepare a written notice on the termination of the contract, indicating the circumstances that impede performance of contractual obligations, and send such notice to your counterparty at the address of registration (indicated in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, or Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs), or at the address indicated in the contract. 3. In what cases, except as indicated in paragraph 2, is a party entitled to initiate the termination, or amendment, of the contract unilaterally, for reasons related to COVID-19? If the right to a unilateral termination of a contract, or a change in its terms, is provided by law, or the contract (Article 450.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), it is not required to apply to the court. It is enough to notify the counterparty about the termination, or amendment, of the contract by sending him/her a written notice, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the contract, or the provisions of the law on sending legally relevant messages (Article 165.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The contract will be deemed terminated, or amended, from the date the counterparty received such notice, unless otherwise provided in the notice, contract, or law. If the right to unilateral termination of the contract, or change of its conditions, is not provided (in general, or for the current situation), then you can use the following tools: (A) the creditor has the right to refuse to perform the contract, if he/she has lost interest in connection with the delay of the debtor2, including for reasons related to COVID-19. The debtor does not have such a right, unless it is expressly provided for by the contract; (B) the creditor has the right to terminate the contract in the event of a foreseeable breach of the contract by the debtor, that is, if there are circumstances that clearly indicate that such performance will not be made on time3 (for example, if the contractual delivery time for the goods in respect of which export, or import, restrictions have been introduced, although will be effective in the future, it will obviously fall within the period of validity of such restrictive measures, which will lead to a violation of the contract); (C) in addition, the contract may be terminated, or amended, due to a material change of circumstances4 if the interested party proves5 that the following conditions apply simultaneously: (i) at the conclusion of the contract, the parties believed that such changes would not occur; (ii) the reasons for the changes are insurmountable; (iii) the interested party does not bear the risk of changing circumstances and (iv) negative consequences will come for him/her in terms of such damage that the interested party did not expect when concluding the contract, if the contract is performed unchanged. In its Review No. 1, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed that the circumstances of the spread of COVID-19 may be the basis for the requirement to amend, or terminate, the contract due to a significant change in circumstances6. However, it is important to consider that the contract may exclude the right of the parties to invoke the material change of circumstances, as a basis for amending, or terminating the contract. In all these cases, the party initiating the amendment, or termination, of the contract should send the counterparty a written notice, or proposal, to amend, or terminate, the contract. In case of rejection of the proposal to amend, or terminate, the contract (including due to a material change of circumstances), or in case of failure to receive a response to the proposal, to terminate, or amend, within 30 days7 from the date of its sending, the interested party has the right to apply to the court, with a corresponding lawsuit8. 4. Is it possible to avoid liability for non-performance, or breach of contract, in the crisis (including due to COVID-19)? As a general rule, a party that has carried out entrepreneurial activities is responsible for non-performance, or breach, of obligations, even in the absence of fault. The only exception is non-performance, or breach, of the contract caused by the occurrence of extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances, for which neither of the parties is responsible (force majeure)9. To date, in judicial practice, an approach has been formed, according to which breach of obligations on the part of the debtor’s counterparties, lack of necessary goods on the market, lack of cash, the financial crisis10, illegal actions of third parties11, devaluation of the national currency and rate fluctuations12, bankruptcy of a debtor’s counterparty13 or revocation of a license14 are not considered to qualify as force majeure circumstances. Thus, if non-performance, or breach of the contract, is due to one of the indicated circumstances, you may need to turn to other tools, for example, refer to the objective impossibility of performance of the contract (paragraph 2), a material change of circumstances (paragraph 3), or initiate negotiations on changing the terms of the contract, for period of the crisis (including for the period of the circumstances related to COVID-19). The recognition of the circumstances related to COVID-19 as force majeure depends on the terms of the contract itself, as well as on the specific circumstances of its performance. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified that recognition of the spread of novel coronavirus infection as force majeure cannot be universal for all categories of debtors, regardless of the type of their activity, the conditions for its implementation, including the region in which the organization operates. The existence of the force majeure circumstances must be established, taking into account the circumstances of a particular case (including the deadline for performance of the obligation, the nature of the unperformed obligation, the reasonableness and good faith of the actions of the debtor, etc.)15. It is important to note the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as provided for in Review No. 1, according to which, in some cases related to COVID-19, the lack of necessary funds can also be recognized as force majeure (despite the fact that such a circumstance is not traditionally recognized as force majeure, in judicial practice). See paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 for how to properly notify the counterparty of the force majeure circumstances and what evidence should be provided. Negotiations to amend, or terminate, the contract should be recorded, and all changes to the terms of cooperation should be recorded in the form of supplementary agreements, or annexes to the current contract. If it is impossible to determine the procedure for further performance of the contract by the current date, indicate in the supplementary agreement that the parties are not responsible for non-performance of obligations, during the crisis (in particular during COVID-19), as well as the obligation of the parties to negotiate, after a specified period of time, to determine the future of the contract and agree liability for non-performance of such obligation. 5. How to properly notify the counterparty of the force majeure circumstances? The term and force majeure notification procedure may be specified in the contract. If the procedure is agreed, it must be followed, otherwise a force majeure clause might not be effective.16 If the notification procedure has not been agreed, the written notice of the occurrence of force majeure should be given to the counterparty as soon as possible, to avoid claims for damages17. If the contract does not specify the parties’ addresses to send legally-relevant notifications, the notification should be sent to the registration address of the counterparty, specified in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, or Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs18. Notice will be deemed received from the date of delivery, unless the parties have provided for other rules in the contract19. Proof of force majeure should be attached to the notice (see paragraph 6). 6. How to prove the causal link between a force majeure event and non-performance? The parties may agree, in the contract, a list of force majeure evidence that will be conclusive, for instance, indicate a force majeure certificate issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (“RF CCI”). Kindly note that RF CCI may issue certificates only for force majeure events that have occurred on the territory of Russia and arisen as part of performance of a foreign trade contract. In order to confirm force majeure events that have occurred in the territory of other states, it is necessary to apply to a competent authority of those states. You should not rely on a certificate of RF CCI, if a contract is not a foreign trade contract. In this case, as evidence, indicate that a certificate of occurrence of a force majeure event issued by chambers of commerce and industry of constituent territories of the Russian Federation20. To avoid disputes arising from new contracts, specify that the document confirming the occurrence of force majeure circumstances should be issued by the RF CCI (in case of local contracts – CCI of a constituent territory of the Russian Federation), or another competent authority. 7. How to calculate the terms of contractual performance in the context of “non-business days” introduced in Russia? The term of performance of the contractual obligation is calculated in calendar days, if calculation in business days is not directly specified by law, or the contract. If the last day of the term is a non-business day, the day of expiry of the term will be the next business day21. Since the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation22 declared the days from March 30th to May 11th, 2020 to be “non-business”, the question arises of performance of the obligation, the deadline for which falls on the period of such “non-business days." According to the Review No. 1 and the “Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) No. 2 in the Russian Federation”, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on April 30th, 2020 (“Review No. 2"),"non-business days" are among the measures established to ensure the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population, aimed at preventing the spread of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), and cannot be regarded as “non-business days” in the meaning assigned to it by Civil Code of the Russian Federation23. In the sense of the Reviews, otherwise it would mean a suspension of performance of all civil obligations, without exception for a long period, and a significant restriction of civil circulation in general. Such interpretations do not meet the goals of the said Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation. In this regard, if there are no grounds for exemption from liability for non-performance of the obligation (Article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the establishment of non-business days in the period from March 30th to May 11th, 2020 is not a basis for postponing the time for performance of obligation, on the basis of the provisions of Article 193 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The same rule applies to government and municipal contracts, for which from April 4th to May 11th, 2020, inclusive, terms specified by law24 and regulations and calculated in business days, are calculated in calendar days (without regard to Saturdays and Sundays). If the last day of the term is a “non-business day”, the day of expiry shall be that non-business day, and if it is a Saturday or Sunday, the next Monday.25 8. What should be included in a force majeure clause, for contracts concluded during COVID-19, and after that? The contract should establish what circumstances are qualified as force majeure, the procedure, form and term for notification of the occurrence of a force majeure event, as well as agree on a list of evidence of force majeure. If the parties are interested in maintaining the obligation for the period of the crisis, we recommend to include a clause that the occurrence of force majeure does not terminate the contract (either completely, or partially). It is reasonable to agree that, upon expiry of the period of validity of the force majeure circumstances agreed upon by the parties (for example, 2 – 3 months), each party, or one of the parties, has the right to refuse further performance of the contract in an out-of-court procedure. 9. Should COVID-19 be expressly mentioned as a force majeure event in contracts entered into, prior to the lifting of restrictive measures? Force majeure events may include only those events that are both extraordinary and inevitable. That is, those are exceptional circumstances that are not customary, under given conditions, and any party, engaged in a similar activity as a debtor in question, could not have prevented their occurrence (nor their consequences)26. Kindly note that, if certain events are named as force majeure in an agreement, it does not automatically mean that they will be qualified as such by the court, in case of disputes. Further, in case a contract is made during the COVID-19 period, the court may hold that the coronavirus is not a force majeure event, since it does not satisfy the criteria of an “extraordinary” event, which is similar to disputes arising from contracts concluded during the period of international sanctions.27 In this regard, in our opinion, it is more effective to distribute the risks of introducing new restrictive measures, due to COVID-19, through contractual institutions of compensation of property losses, waiver of rights and a contract withdrawal (see paragraph 10). 10. What clauses to include in the contract made during COVID-19? The Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows the parties to agree, in advance, on indemnity clauses (compensation of property losses), related to occurrence of circumstances specified in the contract, that are not related to the parties' breach of their obligations28, including in case novel COVID-19-related restrictive measures are introduced. In order for the indemnity clause to be valid and enforceable, it is necessary to specify the amount of the indemnified losses (fixed amount, or calculation formula) and the range of circumstances, which upon their occurrence, allow the party to claim such indemnity. Apart from indemnity clauses, we recommend including a clause on the right of the parties (or one of them) to unilaterally refuse to continue with the contract (in whole, or in part, affected by the restrictive measures) in the event of the certain circumstances (for example, in the case of the introduction of new restrictive measures, or in the absence of the necessary goods on the market, or in case the other party becomes insolvent). Among other things, in long-term contracts, you should be more careful about the conditions for the calculations of prices, in particular, include the conditions for the revision of the price upon the occurrence of the agreed circumstances. At the same time, the terms of the contract that “the price may be changed” will most likely not be enough. It is worth carefully considering monetary clauses, which should meet the interests of the parties, in the event of a devaluation of the national currency, or other financial shocks. For example, in the contract you can specify a fixed exchange rate, or to include a formula for calculating the price, when experiencing fluctuation of the exchange rates. In times of the crisis associated with the spread of COVID-19, the conclusion, amendment, or termination of the contract using electronic, or other technical, means became even more relevant (Articles 160 and 434 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In order to give legal force to the contract concluded, in particular, by exchanging emails, or using platforms for generating and verifying electronic signatures (DocuSign, etc.), the parties shall conclude an agreement on electronic interaction. 1 Para. 21 of the Review of case law, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 26th, 2017. 2 Para. 2 of Art. 405 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter –"CC RF"), para. 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 23rd, 2016 No. 7 “On application by the courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for breach of obligations” (hereinafter – "Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7"). 3 Para. 2 of Art. 328 of the CC RF. 4 Art. 451 of the CC RF. 5 The decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrage Court of the Russian Federation of October 14th, 2008 No. 5934/08; the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of August 8th, 2016 No. 57-KG16-7. 6 Question 8 of the Review No. 1. 7 Para. 2 of Art. 452 of the CC RF. 8 Please note that due to a fundamental change in the circumstances (see section (C)), the contract, as a general rule, is terminated by a court decision. The contract in the event of a fundamental change in the circumstances may be amended by the court decision in exceptional cases specified in paragraph 4 of Article 451 of the CC RF. 9 Para. 3 of Art. 401 of the CC RF. 10 Para. 3 of Art. 401 of the CC RF. 11 The decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrage Court of the Russian Federation of June 9, 1998 No. 6168/97. 12 The decision of the Arbitrage Court of the Moscow District of August 3rd, 2017 No. Ф05-9562/2017 in the case No. А40-129109/2016. 13 The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 6th, 2005 No. 49-В05-19. 14 The decision of the Arbitrage Court of the Moscow District of March 28th, 2016 No. Ф05-2728/2016. 15 Question 7 of the Review No. 1. 16 See, for example, the Resolution of the Arbitrage Court of the North-Western District of February 7th, 2017 N F07-11803/2016 in the case No. A05-551/2016 (Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 18th, 2017 No. 307-EWS17-4115 denied the transfer of the case No. A05-551/2016 to the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for review in cassation proceedings of this decision), Resolution of the Arbitrage Court of the Moscow District dated September 2nd, 2019 in case No. A41-90677/2018, Resolution of the Arbitrage Court of the Volga District dated June 8th, 2018 No. F06-33131/2018 in case No. A65-20171/2017. 17 Para. 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7. 18 Para. 3 of Art. 54 of the CC RF, para. 63 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 23rd, 2015 No. 25. 19 Para. 1 of Art. 165.1 of the CC RF. 20 Protocol of the Government Commission on Increasing Sustainability of the Russian Economy Development No. 3 of March 20th, 2020. 21 Art. 190 of the CC RF, Art. 193 of the CC RF. 22 The Decree of the President RF of April 2nd, 2020 No. 239 “On measures to ensure sanitary-epidemiological well-being of the population in the territory of the Russian Federation in connection with novel coronavirus infection spread (COVID-19)”. 23 The weekend and non-business days mentioned in the CC RF should be determined in accordance with Art. 111 and 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. 24 Federal Law No. 44-FZ of April 5th, 2013 “On the Contract System for the Procurement of Goods, Works and Services to Support State and Municipal Needs”. 25 The Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 3rd, 2020 No. 443 “On the peculiarities of procurement during the period of taking measures to ensure sanitary-epidemiological well-being of the population in the territory of the Russian Federation in connection with the novel coronavirus infection spread”. 26 Para. 3 of Art. 401 of the CC RF, para. 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 7, the Resolution of the Presidium of Supreme Arbitrage Court of the RF of June 21st, 2012 No. 3352/12. 27 Para. 8 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7. 28 Art. 406.1 of the CC RF. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Commercial, Dispute Resolution Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1589317200000
Increased liability for breach of measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19)
Due to the active spread of coronavirus infection COVID-2019, the Russian authorities, at both the federal and regional levels, are taking significant measures to ensure the self-isolation of citizens. These measures include increasing the liability for violation of measures for preventing the spread of coronavirus infection, which caused adoption of a number of legislative acts. 1. A law has been adopted to toughen the criminal liability for violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules. On April 1st, 2020, the Federal Law No. 100-FZ was adopted, which provides for the following changes: Firstly, the criminal liability for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules under Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will be entailed not only for violation, causing a massive disease or poisoning of people through negligence, but also for creating a threat of such consequences. It means that for criminal prosecution under this article, an immediate outbreak of a mass disease, or poisoning, is no longer required: the threat of their onset is sufficient. Thus, in our opinion, the legislator intends to facilitate the criminal prosecution under the said article (which has not been used very often before, due to the difficulty in evidencing the outbreak of a mass disease as a result of violation of sanitary rules by a specific individual). Secondly, the amount of a fine, which can be im-posed as a sanction for the said violation, has been increased (previously the maximum fine was 80,000.00 roubles and, according to the new ver-sion, the size of the fine is now from 500,000.00 to 700,000.00 roubles), as well as such a sanction of imprisonment for up to two years had also been in-troduced. In addition, a fine of up to 2 million roubles for this violation can be imposed, if it caused the death of an individual (Part 2 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Also, a new qualifying element of this violation was introduced, that is the death of two or more persons – with the possibility of imprisonment for a period from 5 to 7 years (Part 3 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Furthermore, the law criminalizes the public dissemination of deliberately-false information about cir-cumstances posing a threat to life and safety of citi-zens, and/or about measures taken to ensure the safety of the population under the guise of trustwor-thy news / public dissemination of knowingly-false public information (Articles 2071, 2072 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). This will enable the prosecution for the dissemination of false information about the new coronavirus infection. 2. A law has been adopted to introduce administrative liability for violation of sanitary and epidemiological norms, under conditions of the spread of the dangerous disease. On April 1st, 2020, the Federal Law No. 99-FZ on a number of amendments to the Code of Administra-tive Offences of the Russian Federation, was also adopted. So, previously, Article 6.3 of the Code provided for administrative liability for violations of legislation in the field of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population. These amendments introduce new qualifying elements of this violation, namely, committing it during the state of emergency, in the event of a threat of spread of the disease, which poses a danger to others, or during the period of restrictive measures (quarantine), or non-compliance with the regulations of the body that carries out sanitation and epidemic control (Part 2 of Article 6.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation). Such a violation entails the imposition of a fine (for legal entities – up to 500,000.00 roubles), or suspension of activities for up to 90 days. However, if such a violation caused harm to human health, or death (without signs of a crime), the size of the fine will be increased (for a legal entity – up to 1 million roubles). In our view, employers and their officials who have failed to comply with the measures taken in connection with coronavirus infection, may incur liability under this article. A non-compliance with restrictive measures (quarantine) introduced in accordance with the Federal Law of March 30th, 1999 No. 52-FZ 'On sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population' could be deemed such a violation. Given that the Chief State Sanitary Officer of the Russian Federation has adopted a resolution providing for the introduction of a self-isolation regime for persons arriving from countries with an unfavorable situation, the article may also cover the violation of regulations of public authorities in respect of non-compliance with the regime of self-isolation / failure to provide employees with the ability to comply with such a regime. Also, in accordance with the said Law, Article 20.61 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation was put into effect. It provides for responsibility for non-compliance with the rules of conduct, when the regime of high-alert is introduced, or in the emergency zone. Such an offence will be punished by a fine (for legal entities – up to 300,000.00 roubles), and in the event of harm to human health, or property, or repeated non-compliance with the rules of conduct – by a fine (for legal entities – up to 1 million roubles), or suspension of activities for up to 90 days. In the present circumstances, this rule (in the absence of any signs of violation specified in Article 6.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation) can also be actively used to prosecute individuals and legal entities, including employers and their officials. However, the difference between this rule and Article 6.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences is that responsibility is established for violation of rules of a high-alert regime, rather than sanitary and epidemiological norms. In particular, the grounds for prosecution under Article 20.61 of the Code of Administrative Offences may be a violation of the Moscow Mayor's Decrees (dated March 5th, 2020 No. 12-UM, March 29th, 2020 No. 34-UM, etc.) and other similar acts of the regions of the Russian Federation, which introduced the high-alert regime. This law also introduced parts 101, 102 of Article 13.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, providing for administrative responsibility for dissemination of knowingly-inaccurate information about circumstances that pose a threat to the life and safety of citizens, and/or the measures taken to ensure the safety of the population under the guise of reliable information / dissemination of false, public information (resulting in a death of an individual, violation of public order, etc.), which will also enable to hold liable for dissemination of false information about the new coronavirus infection. ** 3. The Moscow City Duma adopted a law to introduce administrative responsibility for violation of the high-alert regime.** Also, on April 1st, 2020, the Moscow City Duma passed a law (which was signed by the Moscow Mayor on April 2nd, 2020), intending to introduce Article 3.18.1 to the Moscow City Code on Administrative Violations. In accordance with this article, the violation of requirements of the Moscow City regulations, aimed at introducing and ensuring a regime of high-alert, will be subject to administrative liability. This law, in effect, provides for special administrative responsibility, which can be applied if actions (inaction) of the offender could not be qualified as a crime, or do not entail administrative responsibility under the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. At the same time, this law provides the possibility to detain a vehicle, if the self-isolation regime is violated with the use of a vehicle. Given that currently the situation, with the spread of the new coronavirus infection, is developing rapidly and unpredictably, and the State aims at containing the outbreak of infection, we believe that control over compliance with the measures can be significantly toughened, -based on the example of other countries, which includes, among others, instituting administrative, or even criminal charges against the violators. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: White Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1585861200000
The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on performance of contractual obligations
The coronavirus (COVID-2019)1, which today affects more than 150 countries and territories around the world, has already had, and continues to have, a significant impact on the global economy. In such circumstances, Russian business inevitably faces, on the one hand, the need to comply with the epidemiological requirements and restrictions imposed by the Russian and foreign public authorities, and, on the other hand, with the problems of performance of its current obligations, including foreign trade contracts. In this information letter, we have aimed to touch upon the most relevant issues of the legal consequences of the coronavirus, for current and future Russian law contracts. 1. Excused from performance of the obligations, or from liability for the breach of the obligations, in connection with the coronavirus 1.1 Force majeure In accordance with paragraph 3 of article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, force majeure is an extraordinary, and objectively unavoidable, circumstance under the current conditions, the occurrence of which excludes liability for the breach, or non-performance, of the obligations. To exclude liability of the debtor for non-performance of the obligations, it is necessary to prove that the inability to perform the respective obligations was caused by force majeure, that is, in this case, the coronavirus and/or restrictive measures taken in connection with its spread. Judicial practice considers epidemics and pandemics as force majeure2. The current legislation3 understands the term 'epidemic' as infectious diseases that pose a threat to others, that is, human infectious diseases characterized by severe acute disease, a high mortality rate and disability, together with the rapid spread of the disease among the population. The Government of the Russian Federation approved the list of such diseases4. The coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is included in this list5. It should be noted that, in connection with the spread of the coronavirus, individual regions of the Russian Federation introduced a high-alert regime and established a number of restrictions on entrepreneurial activity. On March 5th 2020, the Mayor of Moscow issued a Decree No. 12-UM “On the introduction of a high-alert regime” (hereinafter “Decree No. 12-UM”), which established special measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in Moscow. Decree No. 12-UM includes mandatory self-isolation at home for arrivals from the certain countries and a number of other restrictions. On March 14th 2020, Decree No. 12-UM was amended and the spread of the coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was recognized as an extraordinary and unavoidable circumstance, which led to the introduction of the high-alert regime, which, in turn, is a force majeure6. A similar provision is contained in Resolution of the Governor of the Moscow Region of March 12, 2020 No. 108-PG, which introduced the high-alert regime on the territory of the Moscow Region (amended by the Resolution of March 13, 2020 No. 115-PG). These normative acts do not qualify the spread of coronavirus itself as a force majeure, but the high-alert regime introduced by public authorities of the regions of the Russian Federation to prevent such spread. As of March 19th 2020, the high-alert regime was introduced throughout the Russian Federation7. At the federal level, neither this regime, nor the coronavirus, was recognized as a force majeure. Moreover, according to current case law, unlike a state of emergency, such regime determines only the activities of public authorities and is not sufficient in itself to be qualified as a force majeure8. At the same time, in an attempt to help businesses out of the crisis, federal authorities and non-governmental associations are adopting acts and explanations that allow parties to qualify the coronavirus as a force majeure, in certain circumstances. In particular, at the moment, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation have issued clarifications on the recognition of the coronavirus as a force majeure in public procurement9 (the corresponding act is also being prepared at the level of the Government of the Russian Federation10), and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation is already issuing certificates of force majeure due to the coronavirus, in cases of disruption of export contracts. In addition, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation requests not to prosecute residents who cannot ensure the timely repatriation of foreign exchange earnings, due to force majeure circumstances, including due to the measures taken by foreign governments to prevent the spread of the coronavirus11, and the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation has prepared a bill, according to which, the government will have the right to introduce a moratorium on initiating bankruptcy cases of organizations in an emergency of natural, or man-made, disasters, as well as significant changes in the rate of the ruble12. Nevertheless, the quarantine measures have not been fully introduced by the Russian public authorities, so, the question of inability to perform obligations in connection with the epidemic, or current, restrictions will be decided by the court, on a case-by-case basis. 1.2 Objective inability to perform obligations Force majeure excludes liability for breach of an obligation, but does not terminate it. Unlike force majeure, if there is an objective inability to perform an obligation, it terminates automatically (paragraph 1 of article 416 and article 417 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Inability to perform obligations should be caused by the circumstance that occurred after the obligation had arisen, for which neither of the parties is responsible13 (for example, an act of a public authority, or local government, that establishes epidemiological restrictions). Inability to perform obligations must be factual, objective and final (permanent)14. Accordingly, acts of public authorities and local government adopted to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and obstructing the performance of the contracts, can be qualified by the courts as a basis for terminating the relevant obligations. 1.3 Material change of circumstances If, due to the spread of the coronavirus, the circumstances have changed so much that, if the parties could reasonably foresee it, they would not have concluded the contract at all, or would have concluded it on significantly different conditions, the court, at the request of the party to the contract, has the right to terminate, or amend, the terms of the contract, due to material change of circumstances (article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). To satisfy the claim for amendment, or termination, of the contract, the party must prove the existence of the conditions listed in paragraph 2 of Article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in particular, the insuperability of the changes and an imbalance between the property interests, in the case of the further performance of the contract, in its original form. Regarding the qualification of the epidemic as a material change in circumstances, judicial practice cannot rely on numerous cases15, but this should not be become an obstacle to the application of this concept to the current situation. 2. Contractual instruments to reduce the risk of non-performance of obligations The rapid spread of the coronavirus, and the significant amount of measures taken at the state level around the world, objectively compels market players to pay more attention to the content of contracts, to ensure the proper performance of obligations and the potential risk allocation associated with its non-performance. We can recommend considering use of the following contractual instruments, which help the parties to ensure legal certainty in case of unforeseen situations, during the performance of the contract. 2.1 Force majeure clause and a concept of material change of circumstances It should be borne in mind that paragraph 3 of article 401 and article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are dispositive law. This means that the parties have the right both to exclude the application of these articles to the concluded contract, and to regulate them additionally by their contract (for example, to provide deadlines for notification of the occurrence of force majeure events, or to agree on the procedure for the provision of evidence of the occurrence of a force majeure). However, it is important to understand that the absence of a clause on force majeure, or a material change of circumstances in the current contract, does not indicate the impossibility of their use in the current circumstances. 2.2 Indemnity (article 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) The spread of the coronavirus leads to restrictions on air and rail traffic, trade restrictions and prohibitions, which involve significant extra costs and losses for one, or for each, side. Such losses may be, for example, losses caused by the inability to perform obligations, the submission of claims by third parties, or public authorities, etc. The parties are entitled to provide for a procedure for compensating such extra costs through the mechanism of indemnity16. Unlike the compensation of losses under the rules of articles 15 and 393 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, indemnity under the rules of article 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation applies if there is no breach of the obligations by the relevant party, and regardless of the causal relationship between the behavior of that party and the losses subject to compensation17. Both the indication in the contract of any specific amount of indemnity and the procedure for its calculation are acceptable. 2.3 Unilateral termination of contract In addition to indemnity, the parties are entitled to provide for the right to unilaterally terminate the obligation, which is also one of the ways to minimize the risks associated with the consequences of the coronavirus. In most cases, termination fees may apply. 2.4 Unilateral modification of contract If parties do not want to include the right to a unilateral refusal to continue with the contract, or the other party does not agree to enter into the contract on similar conditions, it is possible to provide for the right to unilaterally change specific terms of the contract (for example, event or delivery date change). Thus, there is currently a high level of uncertainty regarding operations under the existing contracts, performance of which may be questionable, or impossible. Companies need to closely monitor the development of the situation around the coronavirus, the laws adopted in connection with it and quickly respond to changing circumstances, including by amending the existing contracts that the parties intended to perform in other circumstances, or terminating them timely. It should be kept in mind that the actions of the parties, in any case, must comply with the principles of reasonableness and good faith. 1 On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that the spread of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) had reached the stage of a pandemic. 2 The decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of May 03, 2012 No. VAS-3352/12 in the case No. A40-25926 / 2011-13-230; The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District of February 6, 2019 No. Ф09-8477 / 18 in the case No. А76-30210 / 2016; The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District of August 27, 2019 No. Ф03-3458 / 2019 in the case No. А04-9007 / 2018; The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District of April 01, 2016 No. F05-1154 / 2016 in the case No. A40-97911 / 15-121-785. 3 Paragraph 17 of article 1 of the Federal Law of March 30, 1999 No. 52-FZ “On the medical and epidemiological welfare of the population”. 4 Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 1, 2004 No. 715 “On approval of the list of socially significant diseases and the list of diseases that pose a threat to others”. 5 Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 31, 2020 No. 66 “On Amending the List of Diseases that pose a threat to others”. 6 Paragraph 1.6 of the Decree of the Mayor of Moscow of March 14, 2020 No. 20-UM “On Amendments to the Decree of the Mayor of Moscow dated March 5, 2020 No. 12-UM”. 7 A source: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8027563 8 The decision of the Sixth Arbitration Court of Appeal of January 29, 2020 in the case No. A04-3320 / 2019. 9 The letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of March 03, 2020 No. 24-06-06 / 21324 “On the procurement of a sole supplier (contractor, executor) upon introducing a high alert”. https://fas.gov.ru/news/29575 10 A source: http://kommersant.ru/doc/428.3265 11 A source: here 12 A source: https://regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=100548 13 Article 416 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (part one) of November 30, 1994 No. 51-FZ (hereinafter - the 'Civil Code of the Russian Federation'). 14 The decision of the Judicial College on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 30, 2017 in the case No. 305-ES16-14210, A40-85057 / 2015. 15 The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Central District of August 14, 2015 No. F10-2685 / 2015 in the case of No. A35-8264 / 2014. 16 Article 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 17 Paragraph 15 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2016 No. 7 “On the application by courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for the breach of the obligations”. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Commercial, Dispute Resolution Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1585083600000
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified the issues on the application of conflict rules by Russian courts
On 09 July 2019, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation enacted the Resolution “On application of conflict rules by the courts of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter – the “Resolution”). In this Resolution, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the “Supreme Court”) confirmed some approaches to interpretation of conflict rules elaborated in the court practice and the doctrine. Also, it established some new legal positions, which comply with current international approaches. The explanations, provided in the Resolution of the Supreme Court, concern the following main issues: The broad interpretation of the foreign element The Supreme Court held that the list of foreign elements, which included the foreign party and foreign subject matter of legal relations, pursuant to para. 1 article 1186 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the “Civil Code”), was not limited. In particular, actions and events, which took place outside of Russia and led to the creation, change or termination of legal relations, may be recognized as foreign elements as well. This interpretation aims to eliminate the lack of clarity in disputes between Russian parties, concerning acts effected abroad. In practice, the presence of the foreign element could be useful, e.g. in this case parties may agree that the contract shall be governed by non-Russian law. The definition of a close link between the legal relation and the law of the state According to the general rule, when the applicable law cannot be defined, the court shall apply the law of the state, with which the legal relation has the closest link. In this regard, the Supreme Court elaborated some criteria for establishing such a close link, which were: (1) the territorial link between elements of legal relations and the law (including place of residence / incorporation, location of the object of legal relations, place of fulfillment of obligations), and (2) the probability to effectuate common principles of civil law and separate legal institutions (e.g. the good faith principle) in the most effective way. The application of mandatory rules According to the current legislation, the courts must apply Russian compulsory rules, if such rules have a significant meaning for ensuring the rights and legal interests of parties, regardless the applicable law chosen by parties (mandatory rules overriding mandatory provisions). The Supreme Court clarified that only those rules, which aim to defend the public interest, related to the basis of economic, political or legal system of the state (e.g. the prohibition for foreign parties to acquire land plots in Russia, in some cases) shall be deemed as mandatory. In the Resolution, the Supreme Court established the volume of application of foreign mandatory rules. The Supreme Court stated that such rules could be applied only if their purpose and nature complied with the fundamental requirements of Russian legislation; did not interfere into the sovereignty, or security, of Russia and did not violate constitutional rights and freedoms of Russian individuals and legal entities. The law applicable to the grounds of invalidation of transactions According to the general rule, lex contractus applies to consequences of invalidation of transactions, regardless of grounds for such invalidation (para. 6 Sect. 1 Art. 1215 of the Civil Code). In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that different conflict rules applied to different grounds of invalidation of contracts (e.g. if validity of the con-tract was challenged due to the breach of its form, the court shall apply the law which applied to a form of transactions). However, if the contract is challenged due to the inconsistency between the will and expression of the will of parties, courts shall apply the law chosen by the parties. In a case when parties did not choose the law, the courts shall apply common conflict rules. The choice of the applicable law by parties The Supreme Court established the possibility to choose the rules of lex mercatoria (e.g. UNIDROIT Principles of international commercial contracts, Principles of European contract law, Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law – Draft Common Frame of Reference and others) as applicable law (i.e. not only as subsidiary rules). Moreover, the Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of parties to choose a neutral law, i.e. a law, which did not relate to parties, nor subject matter, of the contract. The Supreme Court also confirmed the possibility of parties to apply a different law to different parts of contracts, if the application of the law did not entail either insuperable contradictions, or invalidation of the contract in full, or in part. Otherwise, the agreement on applicable law becomes unenforceable and courts shall establish the applicable law, according to general conflict rules. The possibility not to apply conflict rules The Supreme Court split conflict rules between mandatory, i.e. rules that shall be applied in any case, and optional, i.e. rules that may be not applied. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of not applying conflict rules defining the law applicable to the contract (paras. 1 – 8 article 1211 of the Civil Code), if the court recognized that the contract had the closest link with the law of another state. Further, the Supreme Court stated that it was possible to recognize that the buyer (not the seller) in the sale-purchase agreement was the party, which provided the characteristic performance, if this buyer undertook sufficient obligations (e.g. ensuring the advertisement of acquired goods). Simultaneously, the Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to avoid application of some conflict rules (e.g. the conflict rule determining the law applicable to immovable properties). The criteria of agreement on choice of the applicable law The Supreme Court determined the criteria of implied choice of law: (1) parties referred to the separate civil law rules in the agreement, (2) parties referred to the same law when grounding their claims (e.g. in procedural documents), (3) the choice of the applicable law was made in an agreement, which closely related to other agreements between the same parties. The Supreme Court also stated, that the choice of a seat of arbitration itself did not mean that parties chose the law of a seat of arbitration, as the law applicable to the contract. The possibility of parties to enter into alternative agreement on a choice of the applicable law The Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of parties to provide the condition that the choice of the applicable law should depend on the choice of the claimant, or to provide that the law of the claimant (or the defendant) shall apply (alternative (conditional) agreement on choice of the applicable law). The Supreme Court also stated that, in this case, the applicable law was fixed at the moment of bringing a first lawsuit and could not be changed later. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court clarified that such an alternative agreement could not depend on the will of only one party to the contract. The violation of this rule leads to the invalidation of the agreement on choice of the applicable law. In our opinion, the Resolution is important for court practice, as the Supreme Court established some new approaches to the understanding of private international law, that may be helpful for dispute resolution in Russian courts. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Dispute Resolution Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1565298000000
Vienna International Arbitral Centre obtained the right to administer arbitration disputes in Russia
On 18 June 2019, the Council for Arbitration Development at the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, authorized Vienna International Arbitral Centre («VIAC») to administer arbitration disputes with the seat (place of the arbitration) in Russia. According to Secretary General of VIAC, Dr. Alice Fremuth-Wolf, the arbitration institution receives approximately 60 – 70 claims per year, with 5 – 7 involving Russian parties. VIAC is included in the «white list» of Global Arbitration Review, recommended by International Bar Association. Parties from more than 50 countries around the world use the services of the Centre (more than 70% of these parties are from European countries). By 08 July 2019, the Ministry of Justice is expected to include VIAC in the list of foreign arbitration institutions, with the status of a permanently functioning arbitration institution («PFAI»). VIAC is the second foreign arbitration institution, after Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The latter obtained PFAI status in April 2019. It is important to note that, as VIAC does not have a separate subdivision in Russia, it is still precluded from administering domestic disputes and some categories of corporate disputes. We wish to remind you that, as a result of the arbitration reform awards of foreign arbitration institutions, that are not included in the above-mentioned list, are deemed to be rendered ad hoc, which implies certain restrictions in comparison to the awards of the PFAIs. The decision of the Council for Arbitration Development is an important step towards the development of arbitration in Russia and promotion of its attractiveness as an alternative mechanism of dispute resolution. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Dispute Resolution, Corporate and M&A Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the authors of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1561064400000
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre has obtained the right to administer arbitration disputes in Russia
On 04 April 2019, the Council for Arbitration Development at the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation authorized Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) to administer arbitration disputes with the seat in Russia. By 25 April 2019, the Ministry of Justice is expected to include HKIAC into the list of foreign arbitration institutions with the status of a permanently functioning arbitration institution (“PFAI”). We remind our readers that as a result of the arbitration reform, awards of foreign arbitration institutions that are not included in the above mentioned list are deemed to be rendered ad hoc, which implies certain restrictions in contrast as compared to the awards of the PFAIs. The new status of HKIAC, as the only foreign insti-tution competent to arbitrate disputes seated in Russia, gives it several advantages. First, HKIAC is now authorized to arbitrate the following types of Russian corporate disputes: (A) disputes concerning the ownership of shares in the Russian companies, particularly disputes arising out of share purchase agreements; (B) disputes arising out of agreements between shareholders of the Russian companies concerning the management of that company, including disputes arising from corporate (shareholders’) agreements. We draw your attention to the fact that HKIAC does not have special rules for corporate disputes. Because of this and due to the conflicting Russian regulation, we may not exclude the risk that arbitration of the disputes mentioned in par. (B) by HKIAC may be problematic. Additionally, the lack of special rules for corporate disputes prevents HKIAC from arbitratingsomeother corporate disputes. The second advantage of the new status of HKIAC is that its awards from now on will be considered final, provided the text of the arbitration agreement expressly stipulates it. Moreover, PFAI status allows the parties to the arbitration to apply to a state court for assistance in evidence collection, as well as to limit the powers of the state court to intervene into the proceedings, particularly, on the issue of appointment and challenge of the arbitrators. It is important to note that, as HKIAC does not have a separate subdivision in Russia, it is still precluded from administering domestic disputes between Russian parties with the seat of arbitration in Russia. In addition, in accordance with Russian regulation, some corporate disputes remain non-arbitrable, particularly disputes regarding Russian strategic companies. The decision of the Council for Arbitration Devel-opment is an important step towards the devel-opment and promotion of arbitration in Russia as well as towards more efficient enforcement of the legalagreements entered in respect to the Russian companies. Amongst the abovementioned benefits, the approval of HKIAC’s requestmay encourage other foreign arbitration institutions to submit their requests for authorization to administrate disputes with the seat of arbitration in Russia. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Dispute Resolution, Corporate and M&A Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1555016400000
1551042000000
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2019 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Dispute Resolution: Litigation/ Arbitration and meditation, Restructuring and insolvency and White-collar crime.
Best Lawyers 2020 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Litigation.
We use cookies to offer better performance of the website and fulfill some other purposes specified in the Privacy Policy. By way of ticking the box you provide your consent to use of cookies. Otherwise, we will only use technical cookies, which are necessary for proper functioning of the website.
Accept