Сравнительно-правовое исследование ремиссии в арбитраже

Abstract

Introduction: the institute of remission has only received significant development since 2016 with the adoption of the arbitration reform and the introduction of appropriate changes concerning remission. To date, the legal framework for the procedure for the return of the state court in case of finding serious shortcomings of the arbitration decision has not been fully formed. The purpose of the study: to analyze the remission in the arbitration court after the state court has returned the arbitration decision to correct significant shortcomings. Relevance: the importance and relevance of the work are since the regulations of Russian arbitration institutions do not have provisions on remission. The regulations of foreign arbitration institutions only contain a reference to remission, but do not disclose in detail the conduct of this procedure. At the same time, the institute of remission plays a significant role in arbitration proceedings. The number of applications to this procedure in foreign countries, as well as the beginning of its development in Russia, emphasizes the need and relevance of the study. Methods: in the paper, the research methodology includes the general scientific methods of cognition, specific scientific methods, and special legal methods, the comparative method of analyzing the rules of arbitration institutions is used, and the systematic method is used to determine the formation of the former composition of the arbitration or the new one. Results: the rules of the relevant arbitration institution should be considered as the applicable rules for remission. As a general rule, remitted issues are considered by the same panel of arbitrators that previously made the relevant award. The validity of the arbitrators’ mandate depends on the relationship between the remitted issues and the arbitration decision. The arbitration refusal of remission must be justified. Based on the results of remission, a new decision or an additional one may be made. Conclusions: the institution of remission is important, as it allows you to effectively and quickly correct significant shortcomings while avoiding the cancellation of the arbitration decision, and preserve the partnership of the parties. Based on the analysis and the conclusions drawn, the authors’ own rules are formulated, which can be included in the rules of arbitration institutions.