Which disputes are arbitrable?

The meaning of arbitrability

Arbitrability is the legal eligibility of a dispute to be decided by an arbitral tribunal. It is distinct from consent. Even a clearly drafted agreement cannot override statutory exclusions for particular categories of cases.

A sequence for analysis

Identify the legal relationship and the precise relief sought. Then examine procedural legislation and any special rules. In Russia, Article 22.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 33 of the Commercial Procedure Code and Plenum Resolution No. 53 are starting points.

Some categories involve additional conditions concerning the parties, the agreement or institutional administration. A general description such as “a dispute between businesses” is not a complete legal assessment.

An international element

Cross-border cases also require consideration of the law of the seat and the rules of the country where recognition or enforcement will be sought. Selecting a foreign seat does not answer every arbitrability question.

The useful outcome is a reasoned assessment of the particular claims and procedure.

Start with the actual statutory prohibition

Statutory basis: Article 33(1)–(2) of the Commercial Procedure Code and Article 22.1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Civil disputes are generally arbitrable subject to exceptions including insolvency, public-law and other specified matters. Consent cannot override a prohibition. Classify the claim itself, alongside its parties and contract.

Case law: Supreme Court 27 December 2017, 310-ES17-12469 itself refused a writ where enforcement enabled disguised privatisation of municipal property. Conversely, Supreme Court 11 July 2018, 305-ES17-7240 upheld a procurement writ: 223-FZ did not itself create a prohibition. Neither holding replaces examination of current specific restrictions.

Corporate disputes and special procedures

Statutory basis: Article 225.1(2)–(5) of the Commercial Procedure Code and Article 7(7)–(7.2) of 382-FZ. Corporate disputes within Article 225.1 require institutional administration. Further conditions concerning consent, corporate rules and a Russian seat depend on the dispute subtype and statutory exceptions. A single set of conditions does not govern every corporate claim.

The sports exception is governed by Article 36.2 of 329-FZ: professional and elite sport, a specialised institution and particular agreements. Ordinary employment disputes do not become arbitrable merely because a special route exists for athletes and coaches.

Consumer credit and real property

Statutory basis: Article 13(4) of 353-FZ permits a consumer-credit arbitration agreement after the grounds for a claim arise. Case law: Supreme Court 8 July 2025, 5-KG25-36-K2 quashed and remanded because that regime had wrongly been extended to a private loan. The restriction remains for actual consumer credit.

Case law: Constitutional Court 3 October 2023, 46-P explained that property registration does not preclude enforcement of an award in a civil ownership dispute. A public-policy refusal requires specific reasons, such as established sham litigation or evasion of law. The Court ordered reconsideration without itself issuing a writ. Continue with the setting-aside and refusal grounds.

Real property: a separate note on Judgment 46-P

The note on Constitutional Court Judgment 46-P of 3 October 2023 separates the private ownership dispute, registration and public-policy review. Real property alone does not preclude a writ. Independent exclusions by dispute category, third-party protection and refusal based on fully explained bad faith remain applicable.

Cryptoassets: three distinct questions

Property-rights protection, arbitrability and the permissibility of a particular remedy are distinct. Payward expressly preserves arbitrability in principle but refuses enforcement on public-policy grounds. Gao Zheyu concerns BTC’s monetary equivalent; Russian Constitutional Court Resolution 2-P concerns access to state courts, not authorisation of cryptoasset arbitration. The comparative guide explains these differences.

Consumer disputes: arbitrability and valid consent

The consumer character of a civil-law claim does not itself create a blanket prohibition on arbitration. The Russian Supreme Court Review of 14 March 2012 expressly rejected such a prohibition. The actual claims, Civil Procedure Code Article 22.1 exclusions and agreement validity still require examination; a public contract is not an administrative dispute merely by its name.

Consumer-credit and loan agreements are subject to the special rule in Law 353-FZ Article 13(4): the agreement may be made after grounds for a claim arise. Plenum Resolution 53/2019 paragraph 19 must not be turned into a blanket ban on advance clauses in every consumer contract. See consumer disputes and arbitration.