The Gazprom headquarters hosted today an annual meeting of the Gazprom Arbitration Court judges. The meeting was led by Nikolai Dubik, Member of the Management Committee, Head of the Legal Department of Gazprom and Chairman of the Arbitration Court Presidium.

The meeting summarized the Arbitration Court's performance in 2010. It was highlighted that transition to the electronic arbitration system was a crucial milestone for the Court. In particular, the remote arbitration proceedings held in the videoconference format allowed settling the disputes among the litigants from different regions in a timely and efficient manner. Moreover, adoption of the electronic document exchange and the digital signature software materially reduced the time and costs of preparations for the trial proceedings. Thus, introduction of the electronic arbitration system was a new stage in the history of the Gazprom Arbitration Court.

The Court efficiency was significantly improved in 2010 when the Regulation on the Arbitration Court and the Rules of the Arbitration Court were adjusted. These documents made it possible to arbitrate disputes among legal entities registered not only in the CIS, but also in European countries.

Background

The Arbitration Court is a form of legal dispute settlement not by state courts but by impartial third party individuals chosen or agreed to by the disputing parties by mutual consent or statutory provision.

The Gazprom Arbitration Court was set up in 1993 pursuant to Gazprom's Articles of Association for the purpose of settling economic disputes among the Company's subsidiaries. The idea behind creating the Arbitration Court was to ensure rapid and unified consideration of economic disputes, taking into account the specific nature of the gas industry.

The Gazprom Arbitration Court judges are well-known lawyers and recognized legislators – Russian experts.

Over the 18 years of its activity the Gazprom Arbitration Court has tried more than 1,300 cases. In 2010 alone, the Arbitration Court considered 230 cases, 38 of those resulted in the conciliation of parties.