The Cassation Court overturned the decisions of two lower instances in a dispute regarding the procedure for resolving conflicts between the engine manufacturer for Il-114-300 and Mi-8 helicopters, "ODK-Klimov", and the supplier "Vega". The court recognized as admissible the terms of the contract that limited the parties' recourse to a state court on certain issues of arbitration proceedings.

The dispute concerns a contract that the companies concluded in December 2024. "Vega" was supposed to supply "ODK-Klimov" with bore gauges according to GOST. These are measuring instruments for determining the internal diameters of holes and other parts.

In the contract, the parties stipulated the transfer of all disputes to the arbitration institution under the Union of Machine Builders of Russia. Its decisions were to be considered final.

A separate condition prohibited the parties from appealing to a state court with a request to establish the absence of jurisdiction of the arbitration court. The restriction also applied to applications for the recusal of arbitrators if the relevant issue had already been considered by the chairman of the arbitration institution or the appointments committee.

"Vega" challenged these provisions, considering them to contradict the mandatory norms of procedural legislation. The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region supported the supplier, and the appeal upheld the decision without changes.

"ODK-Klimov" appealed both judicial acts. The enterprise indicated that the procedure for the recusal of arbitrators is already established by the rules of the chosen arbitration institution, and the courts did not provide evidence of a violation of freedom of contract.

The Arbitration Court of the North-Western District took a different position and overturned the decisions of the first and appellate instances. The cassation referred to Article 40 of the Law "On Arbitration", which allows parties to agree in advance on the finality of the decision of a permanent arbitration institution.

The court also indicated that the parties may exclude consideration by a state court of the issue of arbitrator recusal if the arbitration is administered by a permanent institution.

However, such an agreement cannot completely close access to state justice. Objections regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitration court or the legality of the composition of arbitrators can be raised when considering the issue of annulling an arbitration award or when issuing a writ of execution.