Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Principle of Proportionality of Contractual Penalty in Arbitral Awards in Russia

  • Eunok Park (Department of International Trade, Jeonbuk National University) ;
  • Liliia Andreevskikh (Department of International Trade, Jeonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2022.12.17
  • Accepted : 2023.02.10
  • Published : 2023.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - When recovered through arbitration a contractual penalty that is disproportionately high can become grounds for challenging an arbitral award or an obstacle to its enforcement within Russian jurisdiction. This article investigates how violation of the principle of proportionality can affect the enforcement and challenging of arbitral awards in Russia. Based on the examination of the current legislation, along with the analysis of recent court cases on the subject, the ultimate object of this article is to discern practical recommendations for Korean practitioners who are looking to challenge and/or enforce arbitral awards in Russian courts. Design/methodology - The research process included the reviewing of current Russian legislation conducted in concurrence with academic literature review, searching and analyzing recent court cases where the relevant legal provisions and concepts were applied, and formulating practical implications of the research at its final stage. Findings - Through its relation to the principle of fairness/justice the authors establish the connection between the principle of proportionality and the public policy of Russia. Analysis of recent court cases showed two conflicting trends of whether a disproportionate penalty can be considered a public policy violation. The authors offer practical recommendations on how to substantiate a relevant claim regarding contractual penalty reduction by the court, depending on the desired outcome. Originality/value - The article contains an up-to-date summary of the legal provisions on the principle of proportionality of civil liability in Russia and identifies the most recent trends in court practice on the issue that is not covered by existing studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Agakhanov, R. H. (2022), "Some problems of the theory and practice of reducing the amount of penalty under Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation", Public Service and Personnel, (2), 88-89.
  2. Arakelyan, A. Yu. (2008), Justice in Russian civil law (Doctoral dissertation, Krasnodar, 2008).
  3. Bazhanov, A. A. (2017), Proportionality as a condition for the fairness of the sanction. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Legal Sciences, 21(4), 486-507.
  4. Braginsky, M.I., & Vitryansky, V.V. (2011), Contract Law. Book one. General provisions. Statut, Moscow, 847p.
  5. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part Two) dated January 26, 1996 No. 14-FZ (as amended of July 29, 2018). Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 01.29.1996. - No. 5.
  6. Egorova, O. A. (2022), "Proportionality of recovery of penalty as procedural "fairness" in automobile insurance disputes", International Research Journal, (5-3(119)), 147-150.
  7. Fish, M. J. (2008), "An eye for an eye: Proportionality as a moral principle of punishment", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqm027
  8. Kostikova, A. V. (2012), The principle of fairness in the interpretation of a business contract. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Law, (4), 42-52.
  9. Migacheva, A. Yu. (2014), "Proportionality as a criterion of the principle of justice in civil law", Theory and Practice of Social Development, (14), 130-132.
  10. Newton, M., & May, L. (2014), Proportionality in international law. Oxford University Press.
  11. Rundqvist, A. N. (2022), "Categories of justice and balance in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", Law and Politics, (1), 31-41.
  12. Sieckmann, J. (2018), Proportionality as a universal human rights principle. In Proportionality in law (pp. 3-24). Springer, Cham.
  13. Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation: Information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court dated December 22, 2005, No. 96.
  14. Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2011 No. 81 "On Certain Issues of the Application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation".
  15. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: Review of Judicial Practice in Civil Cases related to the resolution of disputes on the fulfillment of loan obligations, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on May 22, 2013.
  16. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2016 N 7 "On the application by the courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for breach of obligations" with changes and additions from February 7, 2017, June 22, 2021.
  17. UNCITRAL: 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards available at: https://www.newyorkconvention.org/new+york+convention+texts
  18. Von Hirsch, A. (1992). Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment. Crime and Justice, 16, 55-98. https://doi.org/10.1086/449204