Litigation Between Russian and Chinese Companies

 

February 27, 2024

Anna Ivanova, Associate

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

As cooperation between Russia and China grows, alongside the increase in successfully concluded and executed transactions, there is also a rise in disputes between Russian and Chinese partners. Often, such disputes relate to the supply of defective goods, late deliveries, and/or non-performance/improper performance of other conditions of concluded contracts. Negotiations are not always successful in settling disputes, leading to situations where it becomes necessary to resolve the dispute in court.

However, when interacting with Chinese partners, several difficulties arise regarding the determination of jurisdiction and venue, and, most importantly, the enforcement of court judgments.

In this article, we review the main issues related to litigation arising between Russian and Chinese companies. We will also focus in detail on questions of jurisdiction and venue for such disputes, the specifics of dispute resolution in China and Russia, and attempt to provide recommendations regarding the drafting of an arbitration clause in the contract.

Jurisdiction and Venue in Disputes with Chinese Companies

In Russian law, the allocation of competence within the judicial system is the division of authority between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, courts of general jurisdiction, and Arbitration Courts. Each court has the right to consider and resolve only those cases (disputes) assigned to its jurisdiction by legislative and other regulatory legal acts; i.e., to act within the limits of established competence. Economic disputes between organizations in Russia fall under the jurisdiction of Arbitration Courts.

As a general rule under Subclause 1, Clause 1, Article 129 of the APC RF, venue (podsudnost) refers to the rules for distributing cases within the competence of the Arbitration Court among the Arbitration Courts of the judicial system of the Russian Federation. Venue may be territorial or subject-matter based. In the event of a violation of venue rules, the Arbitration Court shall not accept the application for consideration and shall return the documents to the applicant [1].

Furthermore, Article 11 of the Civil Code establishes that the protection of violated or contested civil rights is carried out by a court, an Arbitration Court, or an arbitration tribunal (treteysky sud) in accordance with their competence. Arbitration (treteysky proceedings), including international commercial arbitration, is a process of dispute resolution and decision-making by an arbitration tribunal (arbitral award). Disputes of an international character, including those arising in the course of foreign trade and other types of international economic relations, may be resolved within the framework of international commercial arbitration [2].

Thus, the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation ("ICAC" or "ICAC at the RF CCI") considers disputes arising from contractual and other civil law relations arising in the course of foreign trade relations, including disputes involving individuals, if the commercial enterprise of at least one party is located abroad, or if any place where a substantial part of the obligations arising from the relations of the parties must be performed, or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected, is located abroad, as well as disputes in connection with the implementation of foreign investments in the territory of the Russian Federation or Russian investments abroad [3].

In China, the Resolution of the Supreme People's Court of the PRC No. 18-2022 dated November 14, 2022, On Certain Issues of Jurisdiction over Civil and Commercial Cases Involving a Foreign Element, which entered into force on January 01, 2023, established that:

• People's Courts of the PRC consider commercial cases involving a foreign element as courts of first instance.
• Intermediate People's Courts consider commercial cases involving a foreign element with a claim value from 40 million yuan. However, Intermediate People's Courts in the jurisdictions of Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning provinces, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan provinces, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Hainan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan provinces, Tibet Autonomous Region, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia provinces, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, military courts directly under the People's Liberation Army of China theaters, and Intermediate People's Courts subordinate to the branches of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps of the Higher People's Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, consider commercial disputes with a claim value from 20 million yuan.
• Higher People's Courts consider commercial cases involving a foreign element with a claim value from 5 billion yuan [4].

Thus, the determination of venue in China depends not only on the amount of the claim but also on the region where the Chinese counterparty is located, as venue is determined based on different claim values in different regions.

China also provides for the consideration of economic (trade) disputes in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"). Its work is regulated by the Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). According to Articles 1 and 2 of this legal act, the Arbitration Commission accepts disputes arising in the course of international economic cooperation and foreign trade based on an arbitration agreement to refer the dispute to the Arbitration Commission for an arbitral award, reached between the parties before or after the dispute arose, and upon a written application by one of the parties. Referring a dispute to the Arbitration Commission with the consent of the parties implies that the parties agree to conduct arbitration proceedings guided by these Arbitration Rules [5].

The question of how to determine the venue of a dispute if it is not established by the courts in an arbitration clause is answered in the Protocol On General Conditions of Delivery of Goods from the USSR to the People's Republic of China and from the People's Republic of China to the USSR dated March 03, 1990 (the "Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery"). According to Paragraph 52 of the Protocol, "all disputes that may arise from or in connection with the contract, if the parties have failed to settle them through negotiations or correspondence, are not subject to the jurisdiction of general courts and must be resolved by arbitration, namely:

• if the defendant is an enterprise or organization of the USSR, then in the Arbitration Court at the USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Moscow in accordance with the Rules of this Arbitration Court;
• if the defendant is a foreign trade enterprise or organization of the People's Republic of China, then in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission at the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade in Beijing in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of this Commission.

Russia, as the successor state to the USSR, applies the specified Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery. Moreover, in Chinese judicial and arbitration practice, the Supreme People's Court of the PRC and CIETAC have consistently recognized it as a valid international treaty between the PRC and Russia. Therefore, in Chinese practice, in cases where Chinese companies failed to fulfill their obligations under contracts for the supply of goods with Russian companies, Russian companies filed statements of claim with CIETAC based on the aforementioned article, rather than with a Chinese state court.

However, according to some authors, this document has had the opposite fate in Russian judicial practice [6]. In particular, it is noted that when resolving a dispute upon a claim by a Russian organization against a Chinese one in 1999, the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery was not applied, considering that under the contract, which lacked a reference to this source, the norms of the civil legislation of the country of the place where the contract was concluded were subject to application. There is another example where the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery was also not applied, as the plaintiff (a Chinese organization), in the absence of a mention of this protocol in the contract, based its claims against the Russian organization on the norms of Russian law, and there were no objections from the defendant regarding the use of the latter as the law of the contract [7].

As an example, one of the decisions of the ICAC at the RF CCI can be cited, according to which the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery applies to the supply of goods between Russian and Chinese organizations, unless otherwise established in the contracts due to the specifics of the goods and/or the peculiarities of their delivery, which is expressly provided for in the preamble to the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery. The court took into account that according to Article 3 of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Trade and Economic Relations (concluded in Beijing on March 05, 1992), trade and economic activities between the two countries will be carried out on the basis of contracts signed taking into account generally accepted international trade practices. The court took into account that disputes between enterprises, one of which is located in the Russian Federation and the other in the People's Republic of China, arising from a contract for the supply of goods from the PRC to the Russian Federation, are removed from the competence of state courts and are subject to resolution by arbitration. The provisions of Paragraph 52 of the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery are not mandatory in nature; they do not limit the right of the parties to determine the international commercial arbitration competent to consider their dispute at their discretion, and, specifically, do not prevent the parties to the contract from concluding an arbitration agreement on terms different from the provisions of the Protocol. During the oral hearing of the case, the Plaintiff's representative explained that when concluding the contract, the parties had the ICAC at the RF CCI in mind. The arbitration tribunal stated that at the time of the conclusion of the arbitration agreement, there was only one arbitration court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation competent to consider disputes arising from civil law contractual relations arising in the course of foreign trade relations (the category to which the current dispute belongs): the ICAC at the RF CCI. Based on the totality of the stated circumstances and the composition of the subjects, the court concluded that, despite the inaccuracy in the arbitration clause regarding the name of the arbitration body, the parties agreed to transfer disputes arising from the contract for resolution specifically to the ICAC at the RF CCI [8].

Another ICAC decision states: "When considering the issue of competence to consider this dispute, the court analyzed the relationship between § 52 of the Protocol, which provides for the general rule on the transfer of disputes arising from contracts to the arbitration court of the defendant's country, and the provision of the contract deviating from this rule, by which the parties secured the transfer of disputes to the ICAC at the RF CCI. The court concluded that such a departure is possible for several reasons: first, the application of the Protocol itself is dispositive in nature, i.e., the parties have the right to provide for its non-application in the contract; second, the dispositive nature implies the right of the parties to choose any other arbitration procedure for resolving disputes compared to that provided for in § 52; third, the very possibility of applying the Protocol to relations involving a party located in Russia is called into question, since the legal succession of the RF in relation to this document is not expressed anywhere at present; fourth, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission at the China Chamber of International Commerce, established as the dispute resolution body for cases where the defendant is a Chinese party, did not recognize the validity of this paragraph; fifth, the established practice of the ICAC at the RF CCI also indicates that the parties were entitled to choose any arbitration body to consider disputes arising between them.

It appears interesting in the consideration of this dispute how the arbitration panel resolved the issue of applicable law. Since there was no choice of law in the contract, the court turned to the Russian conflict of laws rule established in Article 1211 of the Civil Code to determine it. However, the court used the possibility enshrined in this article to deviate from the general presumption of applying the law of the seller's country as the law with which the sales contract is most closely connected. The court considered that the defendant's obligation to manufacture the goods, apply the plaintiff's trademark registered in the Russian Federation to them, and supply the goods specifically for the plaintiff indicate a closer connection of this contract specifically with the plaintiff's country, which points to the application of Russian civil law to this dispute" [9].

However, it must be noted that besides the negative practice regarding the application of the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery, its non-application is linked specifically to the independent determination of venue by the parties. If such venue is not determined, and also if the parties clearly defined in the contract the possibility of applying the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery, the ICAC at the RF CCI will apply this Protocol mandatorily.

For example, a decision by a sole arbitrator of the ICAC at the RF CCI concluded that, taking into account the established practice of the ICAC recognizing the General Conditions of Delivery from the USSR to the People's Republic of China and from the People's Republic of China to the USSR as an international agreement in force between Russia and the PRC, the rules of the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery must apply to the relations of the parties to the contract [10].

Thus, to eliminate potential disputes and inaccuracies, it is extremely important to define the applicable law in the contract, as well as the venue for the case in the event of disputes between the parties.

Litigation in China and Russia

Next, let us consider the specifics of litigating disputes in China and Russia. As discussed above, if an arbitration clause is not specified in the contract, the defendant is a Chinese company, and the provisions of the Protocol on General Conditions of Delivery do not apply, starting from 2023, the case may be considered in the People's Court of the PRC.

According to the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Foreign-Related Civil or Commercial Contractual Disputes dated August 07, 2007, if the parties have not determined the law in the contract or agreement in accordance with which the legal proceedings should be carried out, then in the event of disputes over the transaction, the law of the state or region having the "closest connection" to this contract or agreement will be applied. Namely, the People's Courts of the PRC must consider the specifics of the contract, as well as take into account the degree of compliance with obligations by each party and other factors reflecting the essence of the contract. For example, when resolving a dispute under sales contracts, the applicable law is determined by the location of the seller at the time of signing the contract. If the contract was negotiated and signed at the location of the buyer or the contract clearly specifies that the seller performs its obligations to transfer the goods at the location of the buyer, then the law of the buyer will be applied to the contract [11].

In the event a case is considered by the People's Court of the PRC, the Civil Procedure Law of China dated June 27, 2017, applies, according to which, if a party cannot collect evidence independently for reasons beyond their control, or if the People's Court considers that the evidence is necessary for the trial of the case, the People's Court shall conduct an investigation and collect evidence.

When filing a claim with the People's Court of China, a statement of claim is submitted, copies of which are provided according to the number of defendants. The statement of claim shall indicate:

• the name and location of the legal entity or organization, the name, position, and contact information of its legal representative or main responsible person;
• the name, gender, employer, and domicile of the defendant; if the defendant is a legal entity or an organization of any other form, its name and domicile must be indicated;
• the grounds on which the claims are built;
• evidence and its source, as well as the names and domiciles of witnesses.

According to Articles 267–270 of the Civil Procedure Law of China, a People's Court may serve procedural documents on a party not residing within the territory of the People's Republic of China in the following ways:

• in the manner specified in an international treaty concluded between the state of the person being served and the People's Republic of China or to which it has acceded;
• through diplomatic channels;
• if the person is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, by entrusting the embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China in the state where the person is located;
• through a representative authorized to receive correspondence on behalf of the addressee;
• by mail, if permitted by the law of the addressee's state. If the confirmation of service does not return within 3 months after the date of dispatch and various circumstances justify the assumption that the document has been served, the document is considered served on the date of the expiration of the term;
• by fax, email, and any other means by which the receipt of the document can be confirmed;
• if the document cannot be delivered by any of the above means, it must be delivered by public announcement. Documents are considered served upon the expiration of 3 months from the date of the public announcement.

If the defendant does not have a domicile within the territory of the PRC, the People's Court must serve a copy of the statement of claim on the defendant and notify the defendant that he or she must file a statement of defense within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the statement of claim. If the defendant petitions for an extension of the term, the decision on the application is made by the People's Court.

If a party not located within the territory of the PRC disagrees with the judgment or ruling issued by the People's Court of the first instance, it has the right to file an appeal within 30 days from the date the ruling is served. The defendant is obliged to submit a response within 30 days from the day of receipt of a copy of the appeal. If a party cannot file an appeal or submit a defense within the statutory period and files an application for an extension of the term, the People's Court makes a decision on the application [12].

At the same time, by virtue of Article 271 of the Civil Procedure Law of China, if disputes arising from economic, trade, transport, or maritime activities involve foreign parties, and if the parties have included an arbitration clause in their contract or subsequently reached a written arbitration agreement providing that such disputes be submitted to arbitration, neither party may file a lawsuit in a People's Court.

A similar rule is contained in Article 5 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China dated September 01, 2017, according to which if the parties have concluded an arbitration agreement and one of the parties files a lawsuit in a People's Court, the People's Court shall not accept the case for consideration, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid [13].

According to Articles 6–12 of the Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, the plaintiff must file a statement of claim with the Arbitration Commission, which must contain and include:

• names and addresses of the plaintiff and the defendant;
• the arbitration agreement based on which the plaintiff is acting, the plaintiff's claims, as well as supporting facts and evidence;
• the statement of claim must be signed by the plaintiff or an authorized representative empowered by the plaintiff;
• when filing a statement of claim with the said Arbitration Commission, supporting documents substantiating the plaintiff's claims must be attached;
• one arbitrator from the list of arbitrators of the specified Arbitration Commission must be appointed in the application, or a mandate must be given to the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission to appoint an arbitrator.
• an advance payment of arbitration costs must also be made.
• after receiving the statement of claim and attachments, the Arbitration Commission sends the statement of claim with 1 copy of the Arbitration Rules and the list of arbitrators to the defendant.

The defendant is obliged to appoint an arbitrator from the list of arbitrators or entrust such appointment to the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission within 20 days after receiving the statement of claim, as well as to submit a statement of defense with relevant supporting documents or a counterclaim with the payment of an advance on arbitration costs within 45 days from the day of receiving the statement of claim.

Also, when submitting any documents, the parties must make the necessary number of copies to provide to the other party and according to the number of arbitrators. Proceedings are conducted in Chinese. If necessary, translators may be involved.

The decision adopted by the Arbitration Commission is final, and neither party may appeal the case in court or another instance. The decision of the Arbitration Commission is executed by the parties voluntarily within the terms specified in the arbitral award. In case of non-fulfillment of the decision upon the expiration of the designated terms, any of the People's Courts of the PRC, at the request of one of the parties, shall compel the other party to execute the rendered decision.

In fact, the consideration of a case in China by the Arbitration Commission is largely similar to Russian legal proceedings in state Arbitration Courts and the ICAC at the RF CCI.

As noted by foreign trade specialists, there is a similarity between the Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and the Rules of the ICAC at the RF CCI. However, there are significant differences: while the ICAC accepts disputes subject to its jurisdiction by virtue of international treaties, the Arbitration Rules provide for the acceptance of cases only if there is an arbitration agreement in the foreign economic contract. In this regard, standard contracts proposed by Chinese partners for signing generally contain such a clause [14].

Next, we will consider some features of resolving disputes with Chinese companies in Russia with examples of decisions of the ICAC at the RF CCI.

ICAC at the RF CCI

The consideration of a case in the ICAC at the RF CCI is regulated by the relevant Rules, according to which proceedings begin with the filing of a statement of claim.

The statement of claim shall indicate:

• names, postal addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of the parties;
• the plaintiff's claims;
• justification of the competence of the ICAC;
• statement of the factual circumstances on which the claims are based;
• evidence confirming these circumstances;
• justification of the claims taking into account applicable rules of law;
• price of the claim;
• calculation of the amount of each claim;
• list of documents attached to the statement of claim.

The statement of claim is signed by an authorized person with documentary confirmation of their authority. The Executive Secretary of the ICAC notifies the defendant of the filing of the statement of claim and sends them a copy of the statement of claim and the documents attached to it after their submission in the necessary number of copies. The defendant is invited to submit a statement of defense or a counterclaim within a period of no more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the statement of claim.

Proceedings are conducted in Russian. At the request of a party and at their expense, the ICAC may provide them with the services of a translator during the oral hearing of the case.

The ICAC takes measures to ensure that the proceedings are completed within a period of no more than 180 days from the day the arbitral tribunal is formed, but this period may be extended.

Notably, unlike the Chinese regulations, the ICAC Rules provide for a procedure for resolving issues of applicable law. The ICAC resolves the dispute in accordance with such rules of law as the parties have chosen as applicable to the substance of the dispute. In this case, any reference to the law or system of law of any state is interpreted as directly referring to the substantive law of that state, and not to its conflict of laws norms. In the absence of any indication by the parties, the ICAC applies the law determined in accordance with the conflict of laws rules that it considers applicable [15].

The decision of the ICAC, like the decision of the Arbitration Commission of the PRC, is final and binding from the date it is rendered.

For example, the ICAC considered a statement of claim by a company located in the PRC against an LLC located in the Republic of Tajikistan for the recovery of funds. As stated in the statement of claim, the dispute arose in connection with the fulfillment of obligations under two framework agreements for the supply of equipment, according to which the Plaintiff sells and the Defendant buys and pays for equipment (hardware and software). The agreements contained similar arbitration clauses providing that all disputes arising between the parties are subject to resolution in the ICAC at the RF CCI (Moscow) in accordance with its rules. The decision of the arbitration court is final and binding on both parties. As a result, the court partially satisfied the claim for the recovery of debt and penalties under the supply agreement, since the fact of the existence of the disputed debt was confirmed by the reconciliation act of mutual settlements, there were no grounds to recognize it as invalid, and taking into account that the claim for the recovery of the penalty was submitted in writing significantly later than the established deadline and is not subject to satisfaction [16]. Thus, the arbitration clause is of key importance for the consideration of a case in the ICAC at the RF CCI.

Despite the seeming clarity of the provisions regarding the ICAC at the RF CCI concerning the procedure for resolving disputes, the main difficulty in resolving disputes between Russian and Chinese companies is the actual enforcement of judgments of both Chinese courts in Russia and Russian courts in China. Next, we will consider the main issues arising when drafting an arbitration clause in a contract between Russian and Chinese companies, since the feasibility of enforcing a court decision adopted in Russia or China depends on its correct drafting.

Arbitration Clause in a Contract with a Chinese Company?

The procedure for court decisions on trade disputes rendered in China and Russia is regulated by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, according to Article 3 of which each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the following articles.

Also, Russia and the PRC have concluded a Treaty on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, according to Article 20 of which the recognition and enforcement of a court decision may be refused in one of the following cases:

• if, in accordance with the legislation of the Contracting Party where the decision was rendered, this decision has not entered into legal force or is not enforceable;
• if, in accordance with the legislation of the Contracting Party to which the request for recognition and enforcement of the decision is addressed, the case falls within the exclusive competence of the court of the requested Party;
• if the Party that did not participate in the process was not served, in accordance with the legislation of the Contracting Party whose institution adopted the decision, with a summons to court or, in the event of its incapacity, a proper representative was absent;
• if a decision legally effective has already been rendered by the court of the requested Contracting Party on the same legal dispute between the same Parties, or if it is pending consideration there, or if a legally effective decision of a third country on this case has already been recognized;
• if the recognition or enforcement of the decision may damage the sovereignty, security, or public policy of the party to which the request is addressed [17].

As noted by practicing lawyers in the field of disputes with Chinese organizations, traditionally, for confidence in an objective consideration of the dispute, the Russian party always strives to choose a Russian court to resolve the dispute. But in a situation with a Chinese counterparty, this can turn out to be a big mistake. This is due to the fact that the legal acts cited above (the Legal Assistance Treaty and the New York Convention) allow for the possibility of non-enforcement of court decisions of one state in another state [18].

At the same time, in practice, courts in China refuse to enforce the decisions of courts of other states on the grounds that the notice of the time of the hearing was not properly delivered to the defendant. One of the justifications for such a refusal may be the lack of accurate information about the address and the recipient, leading to the fact that the defendant could not present its explanations; also, sending notifications by email, in the opinion of Chinese courts, can be considered proper if the applicant provides relevant evidence that the defendant received these notifications, etc. [19].

Also, in Russia, there is varying practice regarding the recognition by courts of decisions of PRC courts. However, predominantly, serious problems do not arise with the recognition of decisions rendered by foreign courts.

For example, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation sided with a Chinese company, overturning the judicial acts of lower courts that refused to recognize and enforce a decision of the arbitration commission of the PRC. Thus, the courts established that postal notices regarding the sending of postal items to the address: Moscow, Selskokhozyaystvennaya Street, 30, bldg. 1, were presented in the case materials. The courts recognized that this address does not correspond to the address of the Russian company indicated in the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (EGRUL), as well as the addresses indicated in the contracts. Also, the courts pointed out that the "signature of the recipient" column was not filled out in the postal notices. However, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the lower courts did not take into account that the Arbitration Commission of the PRC sent documents on the known arbitration and the plaintiff to the defendant (the company) via the EMS delivery service. The documents were received by representatives of the Russian company, as indicated in the postal notices; the authority of these persons to receive the company's postal correspondence followed from the situation. Consequently, the address to which the notifications were sent meets the criterion of the last known address of the party. Accordingly, the arbitration commission, sending documents to this address, acted lawfully [20].

Thus, in practice, choosing an arbitration clause with the condition of dispute resolution in Russian courts is not always optimal due to the widespread position of Chinese courts on refusing to enforce decisions adopted by courts outside the PRC. On the one hand, the chosen option allows saving on legal costs at the stages of the emergence and consideration of the dispute; on the other hand, it may entail difficulties in the actual implementation of the adopted court decision.

In this regard, it is recommended to adhere to an arbitration clause assigning the dispute to the location of the defendant, specifically the Arbitration Commission of the PRC or the ICAC at the RF CCI, as the consideration of the case in state courts can be significantly delayed.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that, in addition to the arbitration clause, it is extremely important to determine the law applicable to the legal relations of the parties, which will ultimately guide the court when considering the case.

___________________________________

References

[1] Jurisdiction and venue of disputes in the arbitration court. May 15, 2023. Website of the Arbitration Court of the Primorsky Krai.

[2] Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF dated December 10, 2019, No. 53 On the Performance by Courts of the Russian Federation of Functions of Assistance and Control in Relation to Arbitration Proceedings and International Commercial Arbitration.

[3] Competence of the ICAC. Website of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the RF CCI.

[4] Resolution of the Supreme People's Court of the PRC No. 18-2022 dated November 14, 2022 On Certain Issues of Jurisdiction over Civil and Commercial Cases Involving a Foreign Element.

[5] Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Adopted at the 3rd session of the CCPIT (China Chamber of International Commerce) of the 1st convocation on September 12, 1988.

[6] Chinese arbitration has not forgotten the USSR. Nikolai Zhou. "Zakon.ru". November 17, 2021.

[7] The issue of applying the General Conditions of Delivery between the USSR and the PRC. O. Popova. Jindali Law Firm. 2017.

[8] Decision of the panel of arbitrators of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation dated July 28, 2017, No. M-19/2017.

[9] Decision of the panel of arbitrators of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation dated June 24, 2014, No. 7-2014.

[10] Decision of the panel of arbitrators of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation dated December 24, 2020, No. M-2/2020.

[11] Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Foreign-Related Civil or Commercial Contractual Disputes dated August 07, 2007.

[12] Civil Procedure Law of the PRC dated June 27, 2017.

[13] Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China dated September 01, 2017.

[14] Regulatory framework for conducting international arbitration proceedings. Business in China. Information and analytical portal.

[15] Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Approved by Order of the RF CCI dated October 18, 2005, No. 76.

[16] Decision of the panel of arbitrators of the ICAC at the RF CCI dated June 01, 2021, in case No. M-102/2020.

[17] Treaty between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated July 19, 1992. Ratified by the Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RF dated February 26, 1993, No. 4560-1.

[18] The East is a delicate matter: where to litigate with a Chinese company. Malakhovsky A. Pravo.Ru. December 02, 2022.

[19] Overview of the main reasons for refusal to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards in China. Baimukhvametov R. International network of law firms "Mansors".

[20] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 305-ES19-13455 dated November 29, 2019, in case No. A40-217058/2018.