If there's a permanent arbitration, but arbitrators are in different countries. Every arbitrator will sign the award in its own city. Where the award is issued? - that is the question.

Art.20 of UNCITRAL Model law - the parties are free to choose the place of arbitration. If the parties agreed that the arbitration shall be held in Moscow then regardless where actually each arbitrator signed the award the place of arbitration shall be deemed Moscow.

There's also a very important issue of the time when the award shall be deemed taken. In state courts there's no such problem, because judge(s) sign the judgment in one place together. In voluntary arbitration it is quite different: arbitrators may sign the award in other places in different time. The date of issue of the award is the date when the last arbitrator signed the award.

The language of the proceedings is also important. Different approaches exist. As for the state courts let's look into APK. Art.12 states that the language of proceedings is Russian language. The similar (but not identical) is in GPK. Art.9 of GPK provides: civil proceedings shall be performed in Russian language or in the state language of the republic which is a subject of Russian Federation, where the court is located.

So in state courts only (except rare cases in civil proceedings) Russian language is permissible. As for the arbitration there's no such strict regulation towards the language of the proceedings.

Section 2 of Art.12 of APK: persons participating in the case and not speaking Russian shall be provided by court with a right to translator. There's a precondition to invovle an interpreteur: the person should have no enough command in Russian language. Is it sufficient for the foreigner just to require an interpreteur and the court should provide the interpreteur? If the foreigner can speak Russian and there's evidence of that than it's abusive for the foreigner to require the interpreteur.

What if the parties of the dispute in state court are English nationals and the judge is able to conduct proceedings in English (he/she has fluent English, including legal English). May the judge do so? Nope. Russian language is obligatory for judges in our state courts.

Art.22 of Model Law. Section 1: the parties are free to agree on the language (languages) to be used in arbitral proceedings. Failing such agreement the tribunal chooses language (languages).

Art.255 of APK - requirements with regard to documents of the foreign origin - document issued, prepared, verified by foreign bodies with regard to russian organisations or nationals or with regard to foreign persons shall be accepted by state courts provided with legalisation or apostile.

If we're dealing with a state court then foreigner who doesn't have a good command in Russian have a right to interpreteur. Who will pay for interpreteur? Art.109 of APK (section 3): payment for interpret services should be made by federal treasury. Section 4: the rule on payment of interpret service by federal treasure should not be extended for services by foreigners. There's no contradiction between section 3 and 4, because treasury shall not pay for interpreteur invited by foreigner on his/her own initiative. If the court invites interpreteur treasury pays for his/her services.

That was with respect to state courts. What about arbitration?

Let's look into the rules of ICAC of CCI. Para.23: arbitral proceedings shall be made in Russian. Upon the agreement of the parties the language may be changed. Documents shall be submitted by parties in the language of the proceedings or in the language of the contract or in the language in which the parties maintained correspondence between themselves. Tribunal may on its discretion or on request of the party require other party to submit translation of the document into the language of the arbitral proceedings or the tribunal may provide such translation on the expence of relevant party. Upon the request of the party tribunal may provide this party services of interpreteur on the expence of the requesting party. So there's no interference with treasury.

Now let's suppose such a situation. The case is in the state court. Cassation instance. Foreigner gives his testimony in English. Chairman knows English. There's an interpreteur. Chairman sees that interpretation looks very suggestive. Whether the judge may interfere or correct the interpreteur or not? Whether the judge may invite another interpreteur?

American friends of Mr. Musin told him as follows. When ambassador speaks ex officio he should speak in his native language. Russian ambassador in such situations shall speak Russian. It seems to Mr. Musin that with respect to judges analogy is permissible. If the judge sees that interpreteur fails to interpret it does not mean that he should be resigned immediately (unless he's totally incompetent). The judge should just warn the interpreteur for the responsibility for willful wrong translation. If there's just a negligence the judge should not resign the interpreteur.