“How to choose between permanent arbitration and ad hoc” — Tatiana Tereshchenko for “Delovoy Peterburg”
It has become a tradition to oppose permanent arbitrations to ad hoc arbitrations established to resolve a particular dispute. Often, the comparison is not in favor of the latter. But the pros and cons of choosing the form of proceedings conditional and explain significant for the parties interests.
Tatiana Tereshchenko, head of the analytical direction of "Prime Advice", gave her expert opinion on the issue in a special column of "Delovoy Peterburg":
""The quality" of the arbitration proceedings is largely due to the personality of the arbitrator, as well as to the extent to which they are active and immersed in the process of the parties to the dispute: the possibilities to the extent of which they "host" in the process are dispositive. Interference in arbitration disputes of state courts is also strictly limited by law: state courts can only verify compliance of basic procedural guarantees — regardless of the type of arbitration court. Accordingly, the choice between permanent arbitrations and ad hoc arbitration should be based on organizational and tactical considerations."