Attorney for legal representation in the ICAC at the CCI of the Russian Federation
The lawyer in the ICAC at the CCI of the Russian Federation
– to protect Your rights and interests
Lawyer Yarmush Maria provides legal representation of Clients in the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation
Lawyer Maria Yarmush specializes at the international law and in legal protection of the interests of the Clients associated with the violation of obligations arising from the contract of international sale, loan and credit, contract of carriage and transport expedition, contract of services.
In her practice, the lawyer applies a deep knowledge of international sources of regulation of disputed legal relations, as the UN Convention on contracts of international sale, the Principles of international commercial contracts.
The lawyer advises and successfully conducts processes to protect the rights and interests of Clients in the ICAC at the CCI of the Russian Federation.
To start a successful trial in an arbitration court, it is necessary to find a way and a strategy of protection. Identify your strengths and weaknesses. To study the enemy and his weaknesses.
Then it is useful to calculate the possible costs associated with the consideration of the case.
It is very important to competently present claims to the opposing party in the pre-trial settlement of the dispute.
One of the main actions for the protection of violated rights is the preparation of a statement of claim.
If the claim is started against You, it is necessary to prepare your arguments and objection to the claim. A counterclaim is also possible.
Thus, an experienced, professional defense lawyer in international arbitration disputes can find the right and effective way for a party to a commercial dispute in the ICAC at the CCI of the Russian Federation.
Example from practice: a Russian company asked a lawyer to represent its interests in the ICAC at the RF CCI in the case of recovery of money under the supply contract and interest for the use of other people's money.
Maria yarmush found that the competence of the ICAC to consider the dispute arises from the arbitration clause concluded between the parties to the Contract (contract for the international sale of goods), the parties to which are the Russian organization-the seller (plaintiff) and the organization registered in the United Arab Emirates - the buyer (defendant).
However, according to the arbitration clause of the Contract "in case the Parties do not come to an agreement, the case is subject to transfer to the Moscow Commercial Arbitration Court at the chamber of Commerce of the Russian Federation".
Given that the parties to the Contract inaccurately stated the name of arbitration at the chamber of Commerce and industry of Russia, which they had intended to refer disputes for resolution, counsel substantiated the claim the argument that at the date of conclusion of the Contract by arbitration at the chamber of Commerce and industry of the Russian Federation, competent to deal with disputes arising in foreign economic relations, if commercial enterprise of at least one of the parties is located abroad, is the international commercial arbitration court at Trading-industrial chamber of the Russian Federation, having a location in the city of Moscow.
Thus, the lawyer proved that specifying in the Contract the Moscow Commercial Arbitration Court at chamber of Commerce and industry of the Russian Federation, the parties meant to resolve disputes in ICAC at CCI of Russia, determining its location in the city of Moscow.
The ICAC at the CCI agreed with the lawyer's argument and considered that the case was within its jurisdiction.
The dispute between the parties to the Contract arose as a result of non-payment by the buyer of the delivered goods. The buyer refused to make the last payment in the amount of 30 % of the value of the goods, citing the fact that the goods were not properly put into operation by the seller.
The buyer unreasonably far-fetched reasons have shied away from signing the act of acceptance into operation of the product and invoice to delay payment delivered by the seller of the goods and works performed.
At the date of filing of the claim, a large debt was formed for the delivered goods, for the services rendered in putting the goods into operation.
In the arbitration, the lawyer proved the validity of her claims, which were fully satisfied by the arbitrators.
The losing party has voluntarily complied with the decision of the ICAC at the RF CCI.