The motion to stay the proceeding in the case because of an agreement reached by the parties’ attorneys ... providing for drawing up an arbitration agreement in the form of a notarial deed … could not be granted because until a decision is issued by the court substituting for the arbitration clause, the proceeding in the case before the state court cannot be stayed pursuant to [former Russian] Civil Procedure Code Art. 1375.

1. In the event of the death of the claimant or the defendant, the actions of the arbitration court cease, and thus the arbitration court ceases to exist, and any act taken by the arbitrators after the death of a party cannot be regarded as an act of the arbitration court.

2. Cessation of the action of the arbitration court pursuant to Art. 1384(2) of the [former Russian] Civil Procedure Code also occurs when one of several claimants or defendants dies.

In light of the legal finality of the resolution ... appointing an arbitrator ..., there is no legal basis for holding the arbitration clause to be ineffective, because the basis that arose through [the arbitrator’s] resignation was cured as a result of appointment of another arbitrator by the state court. The arbitration clause may be deemed ineffective pursuant to [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 583(2)(2) only if an arbitrator refused to perform his duties or is in excessive delay in performing his duties.

An agreement to submit future cases to an arbitration court does not exclude enforcement before the common state court of a claim under a promissory note issued as security.

The resolution [appointing an arbitrator] could not be appealed pursuant to [former Austrian Civil Code § 582(2)] by the petitioner’s opponent, and he did not appeal against it.

He had even less right to appeal against the order of the first court failing to grant the request by [the arbitrator] to release him from the appointment as arbitrator, as [the arbitrator] accepted this order by the court.

The task of the arbitration court is to hear the parties in order to develop a proper view of the whole case, and it is not necessary to hear the parties when they both present or for them to present mutual testimony, because apart from §§ 598–599 of the [former] Austrian Civil Procedure Code the arbitration court is not bound by civil procedure regulations. It may be persuaded of the truth or falsity of the parties’ claims and allegations according to its own free conviction and does not need to present the parties with their mutual testimony or hear them when they are both present.

1. An arbitrator may not be ordered to sign the arbitration award by resort to the courts. Such a procedure is not provided for by the civil procedure code, which in a separate chapter governs the entire proceeding before the arbitration court. It only imposes an obligation on an arbitrator who fails to perform the duties connected with accepting the role of an arbitrator to redress the loss caused by such failure.

2. Signing of the arbitration award that has been handed down is the same obligation as the obligation to issue an award, as the signature is an essential requirement for the effectiveness of the arbitration award.

An arbitration clause signed for a joint-stock company by only one commercial proxy is invalid if a signature for the company by a single person is not provided for in the commercial register.

The issue raised in the review of what will happen if the Land Office refuses permission to acquire the real estate identified in the arbitration award does not fall within the purview of the courts in this dispute, as it concerns the correctness of the arbitration award on the merits, and comprises an allegation of the erroneous assessment of the award, and therefore it cannot justify any of the grounds of ineffectiveness from §595 of the [former] Austrian Civil Procedure Code.

What is relevant for the content of an arbitration award is only the wording of the award, not the intent of particular arbitrators.