Available in Russian
Author: Mikhail Galperin
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2025-1-40-55
Keywords: European Court of Human Rights; protection of property; international arbitration; impartiality and independence of arbitrators
The article, using the example of recent judgments s of the European Court of Human Rights, including in the case of NDI Sopot S.A. v. North Macedonia, analyzes the current practice of assessing attempts by some national courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in commercial and investment cases, including on the basis of the alleged impartiality of foreign arbitrators. Such attempts are being made today by the Russian Supreme Court, which is trying by any means to protect domestic business from foreign arbitration rulings. The author comes to the conclusion that such attempts, explained by the high goal of protecting domestic business and ensuring social justice, in the absence of reliable normative grounds for refusing to recognize a foreign decision, usually ignore not only the norms of international law, but also the actual circumstances of the case. It is noteworthy that at the same time, national judges themselves (as in the commented case at the ECHR) are not ready to follow the same rules of impartiality, the strict observance of which they demand from international arbitrators. Even timid hints of the ECHR’s readiness to support plaintiffs in such international cases attract interest of the legal community, however, as the analysis undertaken shows, there is still no talk of turning the Strasbourg Court into a faithful “defender” of arbitration. The ECtHR is not ready in such cases to consider the issue of the applicant’s actual losses, and often prefers to limit itself to symbolic compensation for moral damage only for procedural violations committed at the national level. Taking into account the fact that it is not yet possible to recognize the practice of different chambers of the ECtHR in such cases as uniform, it seems plausible that at a certain point the Grand Chamber will intervene and determine the standard of attitude of European judges to violations of the rights of investors to enforce arbitration decisions made in their favor (including international ones).
About the author: Mikhail Galperin – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor of Saint Petersburg State University and the S. S. Alekseev Private Law Research Center under the President of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.
Citation:
Galperin M. (2025) Mezhdunarodnoe dvizhenie sudey za nezavisimost' arbitrov: Obzor Postanovleniya Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 26 noyabrya 2024 goda po delu “EnDiAy Sopot” protiv Severnoy Makedonii (zhaloba Nº6035/17) [International judges' movement for the independence of arbitrators: An overview of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2024 in the case of NDI Sopot S.A. v. North Macedonia (application no.6035/17)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.15, no.1, pp.40–55. (In Russian).
References
Galperin M. (2023) Facie professionis: o “novoy” staroy etike v mezhdunarodnom pravosudii [Facie professionis: on the “new” old ethics in international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.13, no.4, pp.3–16. (In Russian).
Galperin M. (2024) O “zelyonom” perekhode i protsessual'noy revolyutsii: obzor postanovleniy Bol'shoy Palaty Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 9 aprelya 2024 goda po delam Karem protiv Frantsii (zhaloba Nº7189/21), Duarte Agustino i drugie protiv Portugalii i 32 drugikh (zhaloba Nº39371/20), Vereyn Klimasen'orinen Shvayts i drugie protiv Shveytsarii (zhaloba Nº53600/20) [On the “green” transition and the procedural revolution: an overview of the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of April 9, 2024 in Carême v. France (application no.7189/21), Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others and 32 Others (application no.39371/20), Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no.53600/20)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.14, no.2, pp.3–19. (In Russian).
Galperin M. (2025) Kuritsa — ptitsa, Pol'sha — zagranitsa? O “prezumptsiyakh” i “obshcheizvestnykh” faktakh v delakh s uchastiem podsanktsionnykh lits [Are cocks animals? ‘Presumptions’ and facts of ‘common knowledge’ in cases involving sanctioned persons]. Zakon, no.2, pp.33–49.
Galperin M.L. (2018) Rossiya i ESPCH: est' napryazhenie? [Russia and ECHR: is there a strain?]. Zakon, no.5, pp.103–108. (In Russian).
Galperin M.L. (2023) Nuzhna li treteyskomu sudu ob'ektivnaya bespristrastnost'? Kommentariy k opredeleniyu Sudebnoy kollegii po ekonomicheskim sporam VS RF ot 21 noyabrya 2022 goda Nº304-ES22-6536 [Does an arbitral tribunal need objective impartiality? A commentary to the ruling of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 21, 2022, No.304-ES22-6536]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no.3, pp.4–16. (In Russian).
Galperin M.L. (2023) Zhivaya i mertvaya voda rossiyskoy yurisdiktsii. O primenenii st.248.1 APK RF [Living and dead water of the Russian jurisdiction. on the application of article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of Russia]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no.11, pp.198–206. (In Russian).
Galperin M.L. (2024) Nuzhna li mezhdunarodnomu arbitrazhu “pyataya grafa”? Kommentariy k opredeleniyu Sudebnoy kollegii po ekonomicheskim sporam VS RF ot 26 iyulya 2024 goda Nº304-ES24-2799 [Does international arbitration need a “fifth column”? Case comment to the ruling of the Chamber for Economic Disputes of the SC RF of 26 July 2024 No.304-ES24-2799]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no.12, pp.4–20. (In Russian).
Galperin M. (2024) O “zelyonom” perekhode i protsessual'noy revolyutsii: obzor postanovleniy Bol'shoy Palaty Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 9 aprelya 2024 goda po delam Karem protiv Frantsii (zhaloba Nº7189/21), Duarte Agustino i drugie protiv Portugalii i 32 drugikh (zhaloba Nº39371/20), Vereyn Klimasen'orinen Shvayts i drugie protiv Shveytsarii (zhaloba Nº53600/20) [On the “green” transition and the procedural revolution: an overview of the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of April 9, 2024 in Carême v. France (application no.7189/21), Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others and 32 Others (application no.39371/20), Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no.53600/20)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.14, no.2, pp.3–19. (In Russian).
Goodman A. (2012) Effective Written Advocacy. A Guide for Practitioners, London: Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing.
Ispolinov A.S., Sidorenko M.A. (2019) Voprosy vozmeshcheniya ushcherba v Evropeyskom sude po pravam cheloveka: prisuzhdenie spravedlivoy kompensatsii i zaklyuchenie mirovykh soglasheniy [Issues of reparation in the European Court of Human Rights: award of just compensation and conclusion of friendly settlements]. Zakon, no.6, pp.93–104. (In Russian).
Keming L. (2023) Why Won’t AI Replace Quantum Experts? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2 November. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/11/02/why-wont-ai-replace-quantum-experts/ (accessed: 08.02.2025).
Kriebaum U. (2009) Is the European Court of Human Rights an Alternative to Investor-State Arbitration? In: Dupuy P.-M., Petersmann E.-U., Francioni F. (eds.) Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.219–245.
Rees-Evans L., Angelova M. (2024) The ECtHR and the Recognition of International Arbitral Awards: The Court’s Judgment in Iliria S.R.L. v. Albania. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 29 May. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/05/29/the-ecthr-and-the-recognition-of-international-arbitral-awards-the-courts-judgment-in-iliria-s-r-l-v-albania/ (accessed: 08.02.2025).
Rogers C.A., Brodlija F., Tokas M., Semercioglu N. (2023) The Empirics of Arbitrator Challenges in Investor-State Disputes. Ethics and ISDS. Nijhoff Handbooks on International Dispute Resolution Series. 20 December. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4670910 (accessed: 08.02.2025).
Sitsilianos L.-A., Kostopulu M.-A. (2020) Individual'naya zhaloba v sisteme Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka [The individual application under the European Convention on Human Rights], V.A.Vlasikhin (transl.), Moscow: Razvitie pravovykh sistem. (In Russian).
Waldron D., Bolgar-Smith R., Noiret L. (2024) Iliria S.R.L. v. Albania: Landmark Decision Affirms Need for Timely Justice. Morgan Lewis, 11 April. Available at: https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/04/iliria-srl-v-albania-landmark-decision-affirms-need-for-timely-justice (accessed: 08.02.2025).