On Proposals for Introducing Criminal Responsibility for Arbitrators

The paper provides a critical analysis of the draft law on the introduction of certain norms in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation concerning the criminal responsibility of arbitrators. The authors present a number of arguments regarding the fact that the prerequisites for the introduction of such responsibility in Russia are currently absent, since the issue is not sufficiently theoretically developed. Issues related to determining the legal responsibility of an arbitrator in various legal systems are considered. The authors substantiate the thesis that in the existing conditions other legal instruments for stimulating the proper activity of arbitrators are more effective, a number of which are successfully applied. In addition, the implementation of the initiative in modern conditions may involve costs that exceed the expected result.

It is proved that in the case of imposition of responsibility for arbitrators a set of safeguards activities of arbitrators should be simultaneously legislated. Here, the authors propose to establish guarantees of non-interference in professional activities of an arbitrator as well as legal responsibility for obstructing the activities of an arbitrator’s resolution of a particular dispute. The authors suggest that abitritrators be referred to those individuals who are subject to special procedure of criminal proceedings. It is necessary to provide at the legislative level elements of self-regulation associated with the formation of the arbitration bodies who possess significant powers, including regarding the involvement of arbitrators to criminal responsibility.

Based on the results of the research, it is concluded that the relevant issues need to be thoroughly and comprehensively worked out and professionally discussed, which may precede possible changes in legislation.

1. Astashevich A. Ob ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti arbitrov [On criminal liability of arbitrators]. Advokatskaya gazeta. 2016 October 17. Available from: https://www.advgazeta.ru/mneniya/ob-ugolovnoy-otvetstvennostiarbitrov/ [cited: 2000 June 03]. (In Russ.)

2. Berdysheva ES. «Palka o dvukh kontsakh»: sistema otsenivaniya effektivnosti deyatelnosti pravookhranitelnykh organov PPG+1 v vospriyatii sotrudnikov ["A double-edged sword": The system for evaluating the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies APPG+1 in the perception of employees]. Chelovek. Soobshchestvo. Upravlenie. 2013;1. (In Russ.)

3. Borzov MV. Aktualnye problemy deyatelnosti sudov obshchey yurisdiktsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Topical issues of General jurisdiction courts of the Russian Federation activities]. Moscow: Justice; 2017. (In Russ.)

4. Gerakov RV. Nekotorye aspekty pravovogo statusa arbitra v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Some aspects of the legal status of an arbitrator in the Russian Federation]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess [Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure]. 2019;8. (In Russ.)

5. Gravina AA. Transnatsionalnaya korruptsiya kak sostav mezhdunarodnogo prestupleniya [Transnational corruption as part of an international crime]. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2015;12. (In Russ.)

6. Greshnikov IP. Obkhod prava i otsutstvie zdravogo smysla kak osnovnye nachala zakonodatelstva v oblasti treteyskogo razbiratelstva v Rossii [Circumvention of law and lack of common sense as the main principles of legislation in the field of arbitration in Russia]. Mezhdunarodnyy kommercheskiy arbitrazh i voprosy chastnogo prava: sbornik statey. Moscow; 2015. (In Russ.)

7. Dzhagaryan AA, Benedskaya OA. Ne menshe, chem sud: konstitutsionnaya priroda treteyskogo razbiratelstva v rossiyskoy pravovoy sisteme [No less than a court: the constitutional nature of arbitration in the Russian legal system]. Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2018;5. (In Russ.)

8. Kommentariy k Federalnomu zakonu «Ob arbitrazhe (treteyskom razbiratelstve) v Rossiyskoy Federatsii» (postateynyy, nauchno-prakticheskiy) [Commentary to the Federal law "On arbitration (arbitration proceedings) in the Russian Federation" (article-by-article, scientific and practical)]. Skvortsov OYu, Savranskiy MYu, editors. Moscow; 2016. (In Russ.)

9. Malov OA. Institut grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti arbitra (treteyskogo sudi) v rossiyskom i zarubezhnom pravoporyadkakh [Institute of civil liability of an arbitrator (arbitrator) in the Russian and foreign legal order]. Treteyskiy sud. 2017;1. (In Russ.)

10. Sevastyanov GV. Treteyskaya reforma v Rossii: khronologiya osnovnykh sobytiy i spetsifika soderzhaniya [Arbitration reform in Russia: chronology of main events and content specifics]. Treteyskiy sud. 2015;5. (In Russ.)

11. Sevastyanov GV, Tsyplenkova AV. Tendentsii razvitiya institutsionalnykh nachal alternativnogo razresheniya sporov [Trends in the development of institutional principles of alternative dispute resolution]. Vestnik Vysshego rbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2007;4. (In Russ.)

12. Chirkov AP. Problemy opredeleniya subekta prestupleniya korruptsionnoy napravlennosti [Problems of determining the subject of a corruption-related crime]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal law]. 2013;5. (In Russ.)

13. Khvaley VV. Instrument davleniya na arbitrov [A tool of pressure on the referees]. Available from: http://www.advgazeta.ru/blog/posts/357 [cited: 2000 June 03]. (In Russ.)

14. Shvarts MZ. K voprosu o pravovom rezhime otvetstvennosti arbitra (pervye razmyshleniya) [On the question of the legal regime of the arbitrator’s responsibility (first thoughts)]. Treteyskiy sud. 2017;2. (In Russ.)