Kemerovo, Russian Federation
Kemerovo, Russian Federation
Counter interim measures in the arbitration process protect the property interests of the applicant party. They provide the recovery of provisional expenses. This research identifies the criteria for the counterclaim provided by the plaintiff in order to compensate for possible provisional expenses. By presenting counter-undertaking in damages, the plaintiff increases the chances of basic interim measures to secure the claim because that way the plaintiff guarantees their proportionality. By demanding counter-undertaking in damages from the plaintiff, the defendant or other interested parties, on the contrary, seek to raise doubts about the proportionality of the measures taken to secure the claim. As a result, they have to prove the likelihood of the plaintiff losing the case, as well as the likelihood of harm from the interim measures taken. The presentation and reclamation of counter-undertaking in damages is a procedural mechanism based on the adversarial nature and autonomy of will. Thus, the right to reclaim the primary counter-undertaking on its own initiative should be excluded from the court. The primary counter-security is designed to guarantee the compensation of expenses. Therefore, the authors justified the possibility of using various ways to secure a tort obligation for these purposes, not limited to an independent guarantee. The article describes the application and refund procedure for money deposited by the applicant to the court’s deposit account as primary counter-undertaking in damages. As a result, the criteria that the primary counter-undertaking in damages include the security period, the amount, and the economic profitability. These criteria were determined based on the unique tools for each legal way of securing obligations.
interim measures, counter-collateral, primary counter-collateral, security for a claim, counter-collateral, surety, independent guarantee, bank guarantee
1. Kotlyarova V. V. Application of counter security in arbitration proceedings. Arbitration and Civil Procedure, 2012, (8): 11–16. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/pfdgaf
2. Shevchenko I. M. On the cause of a cross-undertaking in damages in an arbitral procedure. Russian Judge, 2023, (1): 2–6. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2023-1-2-6
3. Goryunov K. M. Challenging aspects of legal regulation of the institution of undertaking in damages in Russian arbitration proceedings. Arbitration and Civil Procedure, 2023, (11): 21–23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383X-2.023-11-21-23
4. Skuratovskiy M. L. On possible regulation of the arbitration procedure. Economic justice in the Ural District, 2018, (3): 147–158. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/yptonf
5. Tai Yu. V., Budylin S. L. Interim measures. How to rebuild Russia?! Herald of Civil Procedure, 2020, 10(4): 89–130. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2020-10-4-89-130
6. Shtankova N. V. Interim measures in the arbitration process of the Russian Federation: Problems of proving the grounds for application. Cand. Law Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 2014, 24. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/zphdyp
7. Shtankova N. V. Grounds the adoption of interim measures in arbitration courts: Topical issues of improving the legislation and law enforcement practice. Zakonodatelstvo i ekonomika, 2016, (1): 32–38. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/vlmddt
8. Sasov K. A. Grounds for taking security measures in an arbitration tax dispute. Zakon, 2012, (12): 64–72. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/pjsmuf
9. Starilov M. Yu. Preliminary protection measures in administrative proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction. Cand. Law Sci. Diss. Nizhniy Novgorod, 2020, 349. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/jnarln
10. Starilov M. Yu. Effectiveness of the institution of measures of preliminary protection in administrative proceedings: Statement of the problem, conditions and criteria of application, judicial practice. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Law, 2018, (2): 176–188. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/xvfkdb
11. Selkova A. A. Institute of interim measures in procedural law of Russia and England. Moscow: Statut, 2020, 206. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/otszjs
12. Kalinin V. N. Private law origins of the cross-undertaking in damages in the arbitration procedure. Arbitration and Civil Procedure, 2023, (12): 26–30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383X-2023-12-26-30
13. Trezubov E. S., Lisina N. L. Features of identification of a local subject of proof in case of review of an application for an interim remedy. Arbitration and Civil Procedure, 2023, (10): 27–32. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383X-2023-10-27-32
14. Trezubov E. S. Counter collateral of the claim in Russian arbitration procedure: From the realities to the unified Civil Procedure Code. Herald of Civil Procedure, 2017, 7(6): 170–191. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ykhgpl
15. Smolnikov D. I. Recovery of compensation in connection with securing the claim. Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2016, (7): 30–35. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/wiajwx
16. Zvyagina N. S. Provisional remedies as a means of procedural risk management in the arbitration procedure. Arbitration and Civil Procedure, 2023, (12): 21–25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383X-2023-12-21-25
17. Kliver E. P. On some issues of indemnity in the arbitration procedure and levy of execution on funds in the deposit account of the court. Herald of Omsk University. Series: Law, 2016, (4): 145–154. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/xhokvt
18. Kliver E. P. On some questions of ensuring in arbitration procedure and collection of taxes due by seizure of cash on the court deposit account. Herald of Civil Procedure, 2016, (6): 187–201. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/xdrwtz
19. Smetannikov A. E. Features of the institution of guarantee in the arbitration process. Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 2008, (2): 4–11. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ijprob
20. Povarov Yu. S. Essential and other conditions of bank (independent) guarantee. Juridical Journal of Samara University, 2015, 1(1): 11–16. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/uifref
21. Kobchenko I. Term of guarantee: Analysis of judicial practice. Civilistics, 2020, 2(4): 153–165. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/gdbbng
22. Sarbash S. V. Guarantee: Commentary on the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 24, 2020, No. 45 On resolving disputes regarding guarantee. Moscow: Statut, 2021, 548. (In Russ.)
23. Zaitsev V. V. Fulfilling obligations: History, modernity, and development prospects. Moscow: Statut, 2021, 396. (In Russ.)
24. Kilichenkova M. A. Issues arising in connection with the application of the provisions of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation in cases involving foreign citizens. Arbitrazhnye spory, 2010, (4): 65–82. (In Russ.)
25. Abdulov I. V. Procedural means of protecting the interests of the defendant from interim measures in the arbitration process. Moscow District Commercial Court Bulletin, 2016, (2): 54–64. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/wkszyf
