Point of law: whether a choice-of-court clause in an agreement may confer the right to apply to a competent State court upon only one party and deprive the other party of the same right, thus leaving to it only the opportunity to apply to an arbitration court?

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium held that such prorogation agreement is not valid, because it breaks the balance of interests between parties and thus runs counter to legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Russia and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the necessity to ensure the equality of procedural rights and opportunities of litigating parties. The party whose right is violated by such an agreement may also have recourse to the competent State court, thereby realising its right to judicial protection on equal footing with its counterparty.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.