In this survey the Presidium of the Court gave examples of correct resolution of issues related to the parties’ choice of court or applicable law in cross-border disputes, the adoption of provisional (interim) measures, etc. In particular, from the survey it follows that:

- counter-suit should be presented to commercial court at the place of consideration of the original suit irrespective of the own jurisdiction of such counter-suit;

- if determination of the law applicable under parties’ agreement depends on who will step forward as a plaintiff, the lodging of the original suit puts this condition as to the applicable law into action, and therefore the filing of a counter-suit by the other party does not change applicable law. The risk of uncertainty as to the applicable law prior to the moment of filing the first suit lies with the parties who concluded to agreement on applicable law;

- the choice of competent court may not contradict mandatory rules of the Commercial Procedure Code on competence (for instance, parties may not choose for consideration of their case a court of cassational or supervisory instance);

- participation of a foreign company in judicial proceedings and the lack of objections on its part against the jurisdiction of Russian commercial court till the first declaration of the company on the substance of the case shall confirm its consent to the consideration of dispute by that court and entail the loss of right to refer to its lack of competence;

- if a branch or representation office of the company do not participate in conclusion and execution of a transaction, the criterion of determination of international jurisdiction in accordance with the place of location of the branch or representative office may not apply because for the recognition of court’s jurisdiction it is necessary to have proofs of there being a connection between the branch or representative office and the legal relations in question (for instance, a contract or tort);

- the forms of close connection of a disputed legal relation with the territory of Russia may be different, and the presence of such connection should be found out in each particular case with due regard to the whole totality of circumstances;

- making contract in the Russian language, its conclusion in Russia as well as the choice of Russian court for resolution of disputes do not refute the presumptions contained in Art 1211 of the Civil Code regarding the most close connection of particular types of contracts with the law of the country of residence or main activity of the party which should exercise specific performance;

- the application of super-mandatory rules of Russian law to disputed transaction (which led to invalidity of its part) does not subject the remaining (valid) part of the transaction to Russian law and does not per se exclude the application to it of the foreign law chosen by the parties;

- the burden of submitting the information on the contents of the rules of foreign law may not be assumed to be placed upon the parties automatically that would make court would free from the duty to determine their contents;

- if parties failed to discharge the duty, placed upon them by the court, to determine the contents of foreign law, and the court itself took albeit unsuccessful but sufficient measures for this purpose, it may apply Russian law to disputed legal relations;

- even if the Russian court in the light of the rules of international jurisdiction does not have competence to consider a dispute, this fact does not preclude it from taking interim measures to secure the suit which is being considered on merits by a foreign court;

- taking interim (provisional) measures upon the motion of a foreign court is envisaged by neither the provisions of applicable international treaties of the Russian Federation nor by the provisions of Commercial Procedure Code, and their application is possible only upon the motion of a person participating in the case;

- a foreign court’s anti-suit injunction against the consideration of the case in Russian court may not by its nature as well as by virtue of rules of Russian and international law preclude consideration of the case in Russian commercial court and may not have legal consequences in the territory of the Russian Federation.