It was a very significant position of supreme state arbitration court.

There is also a ruling of CC of RF 2011 which displays in detail the position of CC on voluntary forms of dispute resolution. CC stated: voluntary arbitration courts do not belong to russian state court system. Still the Constitution does not exclude a possibility to resolve disputes between or among private persons by voluntary arbitration. Voluntary arbitrations act as civil society institutions with some public functions. In such a way CC also confirmed that activities of voluntary forms should not be deemed as kind of civil law services.

Why these institutions have some public functions? Awards of voluntary arbitrations are binding. Of course, these awards generally should be executed voluntary. But if they are not executed voluntary they are subject to enforcement. Enforcability of awards shows that voluntary arbitration performs public functions.

While voluntary arbitration does not perform justice, it performs some public functions.

In Soviet times there were no rules with respect to internal arbitration. But there were some rules with respect to institutions dealing with foreign trade (e.g. Foreign Trade Arbitration Comission - now it is called ICAC).

Now the number of voluntary arbitration forms became much more. It is resulted by the transition to market economy. This transition increased the number of civil transactions (both domestic and foreign).

We have state court system consisting of parts dealing with civil law disputes. Why in addition to this courts created by state we still need and enjoy dispute resolution activities of voluntary forms. The answer is very simple. Apparently there are some advantages of voluntary forms as compare with state court system.

Such advantages do exist. And we now consider it in some detail.

The main one is due to the fact that the parties to dispute may and do much more influence on the proceedings than in state courts. These influence of the parties to the dispute on proceedings in the voluntary courts may be manifested in different ways.

First, appointment of arbitrators. The parties may entrust the dispute to resolution to persons who are most competent in the parties' opinion. In state courts it is impossible. There are some details regarding the appointment in different countries. But anyhow either the parties do enjoy the possibility to influence upon arbitral panel which they appoint.

Second, the parties to dispute submitting the resolution to voluntary form may influence upon the rules governing procedure. In state courts there are their own procedural rules - GPK and APK. Proceeding are regulated by these codes in any detail. The deviation is not permitted. Judge of state arbitration court may not apply GPK instead of APK.

If plaintiff and respondent come to our voluntary arbitration in Saint-Petersburg and jointly submit such a motion: here it is our dispute to the resolution, but we would very much prefer for you to apply the rules of Stocholm arbitration institue. How do you think what would be the answer of the secretary of this arbitration? The procedural rules of arbitration in Saint-Petersburg are mainly optional, the parties may amend them. So the answer would be positive while in state court the answer would be absolutely negative.

If we submit a claim to state court then we should recognise that there are some instances. If I lost the case in first instance I may appeal and so on. With regard to voluntary arbitration there are no several instances. There is only one instance whose award is final. Therefore, time period of the dispute resolution in voluntary arbitration theoretically is shorter than in state courts. It is one more advantage of voluntary form.

Another advantage concerns a confidentiality which is essential in voluntary arbitration and which is almost impossible in state courts (except rare situations). The proceedings in state courts are publicly available. This availability may and do create some problems for parties to the dispute.

Abroad there are a lot of people who are called as trouble-makers. They have a very good connection to mass media. The company which cares about its reputation will prefer to maintain its reputation. Hence, it unlikely goes to state court and goes to arbitration where confidentiality is a principle.

So this confidentiality is also a very important principle which is effective in voluntary proceedings and is inapplicable in state courts. If anyone (arbitrators or litigants) objects attendance in hearings by third parties they cannot attend them.

The grounds for setting awards and judgments aside are completely different. Misapplication of law is a ground for annulment the judgment of state court and is not a ground for annulment the arbitral award. Award may be set aside if there is a violation of public policy and so on. But there are no 'substantive' grounds for annulment. It creates additional trust to voluntary arbitration.

While there are advantages of arbitral proceedings there are disadvantages.