Russian Federation: Rental Lease Relationship: Current Trends In Dispute Resolution

Last Updated: 15 September 2009
Article by Vladimir Pestrikov

Recently the balance of interests in the real estate market in Russia has shifted significantly. The reason for that change is that the economic downturn caused a declining demand for commercial nonresidential premises and reduced the revenues of many market players. The low demand for office and trade premises entails reduction of rental rates. In terms of financial crisis lessees are trying to reduce their rental costs and compel lessors to decrease the rental rates due to the current market situation. In this respect the most important issue is what legal options and mechanisms are available to the parties to amend or terminate an effective lease contract.

Discussed below are some recent rulings in Russian courts regarding extending lease contracts and/or amending its terms.

CASE: Kalinka Stockmann v. Smolensky Passazh

Serious problems for a lessor or lessee may arise if an effective long-term lease contract does not provide any grounds to amend rental lease rates or unilaterally rescind the agreement. The is especially true when external circumstances in the real estate market have substantially changed and the other party is reluctant to review the terms of lease in order to reflect these changes.

The latest example of a controversy between lessor and lessee of commercial premises is the notorious case of ZAO "Kalinka Stockmann" against LLC "Smolensky Passazh" and ZAO "Mosstroyekonombank" that was finally resolved by the Presidium of the Higher Court of Arbitration of the RF (further referred to as "HCA") just a few weeks ago.

Further let us briefly examine the merits and legal issues of this dispute and comment on the principal findings in the arbitration award and court's decision.

The dispute between the lessee (Kalinka Stockmann) and the lessor (Smolensky Passazh) arose from the duty to extend the existing lease contract concluded in 1997 with respect to the premises in the Business and Trade Center "Smolensky Passazh" in Moscow to another 10 year term. The lease contract contained a clause that entitled the lessee to extend the contract (that expired in 2007) to another ten-year term upon notification to the lessor within 6 months prior to the date of expiration of the contract. The clause also stipulated that the terms and conditions of the lease contract had to remain unchanged for the next term of lease. In 2007 the lessee duly notified the lessor of its will to extend the contract. However, the lessor did not agree and demanded to free the premises occupied by the lessee. Objecting to the extension, Smolensky Passazh referred to the losses that would occur if the lease relationship continued on the previously stated conditions. According to the provisions of the contract, the rental rate was determined by the parties at the beginning of the relationship (i.e. ten years ago) and was calculated on the basis of the lessee's annual turnover. The lessee's turnover was in fact very low in recent years, so that the continuation of the lease relationship would be unfeasible and unfavorable for Smolensky Passazh.

The circumstances of this matter allow us to conclude that the lessor made an obvious error during contract negotiation and formation of the lease agreement. In an attempt to contract a prospective foreign lessee, the lessor signed a long-term lease agreement (indeed for the period of twenty years) without setting up a mechanism for periodical rate revision. As a result, the lessor found himself in a very difficult position after ten years.

The contract incorporated an arbitration clause providing that all disputes or claims arising out of or relating to the lease contract shall be submitted to the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Trade and Commerce of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as "ICAC"). Kalinka Stockmann filed an action to the ICAC aiming to resolve the dispute concerning the extension of lease. The arbitration tribunal of the ICAC adjudicated the case and made an award on 29.04.2008, holding the following: (1) to recognize the plaintiff's right to extend the lease contract entered into with the defendant; (2) to order the defendant – Smolensky Passazh – to extend the term of the contract for another ten years by means of signing and registering an appropriate addendum to the contract. Thus, the award was rendered in favor of the lessee; the arbitral tribunal supported the claim and held it to be in compliance with the Russian legislation dismissing the arguments of Smolensky Passazh.

However, that was only an interim victory for Kalinka Stockmann. Smolensky Passazh brought a petition to the supervising state court namely Moscow Arbitration Court claiming to set aside the ICAC award (case № А40-28757/08-25-228). Subsequently this case was litigated in the cassation instance - Federal Arbitration Court of Moscow region (Russian abbreviation – "FAS MO"), and the final verdict was made by the Presidium of the Higher Court of Arbitration. All the state arbitration courts upheld the claim and ruled to set aside the arbitral award on the grounds of article 34 of the Federal Law "On international commercial arbitration."

In the given case Smolensky Passazh raised many arguments to invalidate the award in its petitions filed in the courts. Among the appellant's grounds were: violation of the procedural rules by the arbitrators while dealing with the case; appointing a biased arbitrator; refusal to dismiss an arbitrator; non-arbitrability of the subject matter and contradiction of the award to the public order of the RF. The courts treated and evaluated these grounds differently and therefore came to their conclusions in different ways. Some grounds were initially upheld by the lower courts but then overturned; other reasons were initially disregarded and then later admitted by the superior courts. This disparity represents additional evidence that the Russian judicial practice still remains unclear and inconsistent as to the application of the principles of arbitrability and recognition and enforcement of the international commercial arbitration awards in Russia.

Without going into to much detail concerning all of the peculiarities and controversies of the court rulings in this case, we will illustrate below the most significant findings of the courts that can potentially impact the future legal practice.

First of all, FAS MO affirmed the conclusion of the Moscow Arbitration Court that the subject matter of this dispute can not be submitted to the arbitration. The courts held that the dispute involved the issue of state registration of the rights to an immovable property (under s. 1 of the article 452 and article 651 of the Civil Code of the RF (the "CC RF") an agreement to extend a lease contract requires state registration), and, therefore, affected public interests and belonged to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian state courts1. However, the panel of judges of the HCA did not agree with this statement when revisiting the case. In the Ruling dated 03 March 2009 No 17481/08 they argued that the subject matter of the dispute was not public on its character or the persons involved, and, therefore, such a dispute could be validly submitted to and resolved by an international arbitration. The issue of state registration of lease rights lies outside the scope of the claim to extend the term of the lease contract. The state registration requirement did not convert this pure commercial relationship to a matter of public interest. Nevertheless, the Presidium of the HCA did not express an opinion on this issue in reviewing the decision, choosing rather to remain silent on this problem. In summary, the arbitrability issue in disputes involving state registration of rights to real estate is still uncertain in our judicial system. Although the negative approach of the state courts is still prevailing in Russia, there are some visible steps demonstrating a possible shift towards a more favorable attitude of recognizing the jurisdiction of international commercial arbitration courts in this type of dispute.

Secondly, we draw your attention to the final Ruling of the Presidium of the HCA on the case (No 17481/08, as of 19 May 2009). In its decision the court focused only on a single reason for setting aside the ICAC award; considering no other arguments that were examined by the courts of the lower instances. The Presidium recognized the right to extension provision stated in the body of the lease contract but said that the "procedure of formation" of such an extension to the lease contract had not been established by the parties. Further, the HCA referred to the common procedure of extending the lease by concluding a new lease contract for the next term pursuant to article 620 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on these statements, the court concluded that the scope of the arbitration clause did not cover the conclusion of a lease contract for the new term, because the parties did not envisaged that and restricted the effect of the arbitration clause only to the disputes arising out of or related to the initial lease contract expired on 30.04.2008. Thus, the HCA finally held that the ICAC had no competence to arbitrate this matter.

In our opinion, there is a factual and logical mistake in the reasoning of the Presidium of the HCA. It misinterpreted the main legal issue in the dispute resolved by the tribunal of arbitrators, namely the issue of the validity of the substantive right of the lessee to demand the extension of the lease contract. The right for extension and conditions of the extension were laid out in the main lease contract, so that the given controversy arose from the contract itself and was within the scope of arbitration clause. The plaintiff grounded its claim on the terms of the lease contract as opposed to article 621 of the CC RF that can only be applied in the absence of the relevant contractual provisions. The lack of detailed procedure in the contract for specific ways of documentation and signing the extension is a simply technical issue and can not be decisive.

Application of article 451 of the Civil Code of the RF to lease contracts

This year FAS MO has made some other notable decisions concerning disputes between lessors and lessees dealing with changing conditions of the lease agreement and introducing appropriate amendments to the contract. The most significant legal development from those cases was the application of provisions of article 451 of the Civil Code of the RF regulating the substantial change of circumstances to lease contracts by the arbitration courts.

In the case OAO "Kompomash" (plaintiff, lessor) vs. ZAO "Kompomash-TEK" (defendant, lessee) the Moscow Arbitration Court supported the claim of the lessor and ordered the introduction of amendments to the lease contract and an increase in the annual rental lease rate pursuant to article 451of the CC RF (case № А40-80315/06-64-569). FAS MO affirmed the ruling; the HCA, in turn, also upheld the decisions of Moscow courts. The courts reasoned that the external circumstances had substantially changed since the date of entering into the contract by the parties. In the Ruling of the HAC on this case the court stated: the market value of the lease for the non-residential premises had grown to the extent that if the plaintiff could have foreseen that, the contract would have been concluded on substantially different terms. The market value of the lease was determined on the basis of the expert opinion made by an appraiser appointed by the court.

In another similar case FAS MO also came to a decision that the merits of dispute met all necessary conditions prescribed in s. 2 of article 451 and awarded appropriate amendments to the lease contract (case № А40-44212/07-64-364). The court held that the significant growth of rental lease rates in the market constitutes substantial change of circumstances in the meaning of the article 451. FAS MO asserted that the growth resulted from a change in the economic situation of the country due to objective causes. "The parties to the lease agreement could not foresee this violent change in the market and the plaintiff was not in a position to control or influence these circumstances acting diligently and in good-faith", so the HCA.

Therefore, in summary the arbitration courts of higher instances in Russia have adopted a new approach in the judicial practice allowing parties to a lease agreement to seek application of article 451 in a judicial procedure in order to amend the initial terms of the contract, primarily the lease rate (in the case described above the rate was increased in favor of lessors). We believe that these judicial precedents can potentially become an effective method for reviewing the lease rates for the benefit of either a lessor or a lessee taking into account the current financial crisis and turbulence in the real estate market. This approach is especially remarkable in light of general trend in judicial practice where the courts are reluctant to apply article 451 of the CC RF to other types of civil law relations (particularly to loan contracts).


1 This approach corresponds to the position indicated in clause 27 of the Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Higher Court of Arbitration of the RF as of 22.December 2005, No 96.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions