Baltic-Mulhan-Leningrad, a joint venture, applied to the Arbitrazh Court of the City of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region requesting the court to issue a writ of execution of an award of the permanent arbitration court at the St. Petersburg Legal Society of June 4, 1996. The award required the Baltic Shipping Company to pay for the work performed, the cost of materials supplied, commission, penalties and interest; 6,364,107.03 DM total; and 254,564.28 DM of the arbitration registration fee.
       By the resolution of the court of October 2, 1996, the motion was granted.
       By the resolution of the appellate instance of December 10, 1996, the court resolution was upheld.
       The cassation instance did not check the legality of the court resolution.
       The protest moved to vacate the resolution of the court of the first instance and the resolution of the appellate instance and to remand the case to the arbitration court for a new trial.
       The Presidium considers that the protest should be satisfied for the following reasons.
       According to Art. 7(2) of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on Entering Into the Legal Force of the Code of Arbitrazh Procedure of the Russian Federation, until the federal law on arbitration courts in the Russian Federation is adopted, issuing of the writs of execution of arbitral awards is to be conducted in the order provided by the Temporary Regulation on Arbitration Courts for the Settlement of Economic Disputes (hereinafter Temporary Regulation) approved by the resolution N. 3115-1 of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation on June 24, 1992.
       According to Art. 25 of the Temporary Regulation, if the defendant does not perform the arbitral award during the time prescribed, the arbitrazh court of a constituent republic of the Russian Federation, region, or city in the territory where the arbitration court is located, issues a writ of execution.
       Under Art. 26 of the Temporary Regulation, the arbitrazh court has a right to deny issuance of a writ of execution when: parties did not reach an agreement to arbitrate their disputes; the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure did not correspond to the agreement of the parties on arbitrating their disputes; the party against which the award is rendered was not duly informed of the day of the arbitration hearing or for other reasons could not submit its explanations.
       The arbitrazh court, while satisfying the petition of the joint venture, Baltic-Mulhan-Leningrad, to issue a writ of execution to collect the principal, penalties, interest, and arbitration registration fee, did not check the order in which the arbitrators had been appointed.
       According to the Temporary Regulation, the main principle of arbitration is the appointment of arbitrators by the parties themselves.
       According to Art. 5 of the Temporary Regulation, when the parties refer their dispute to a permanent arbitration court, they appoint arbitrators according to the procedure set forth in the Rules of that arbitration court.
       The procedure of appointing arbitrators by the unilateral decision of the Chairman of the Arbitration Court specified in Art. 22 of the Rules of the Permanent Arbitration Court for the Settlement of Economic Disputes at the St. Petersburg Legal Society, violates the basic provisions and principles of the Temporary Regulation and, therefore, cannot be applied.
       In these circumstances, the decisions rendered by the arbitration court should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
       In addition, the arbitration court did not take into account that the writ of execution must fully comply with the arbitration award. However, the arbitrazh court issued a writ of execution in favor of Baltic-Mulhan-Leningrad to recover from the Baltic Shipping Company arbitration registration fee. However, the arbitration court did not render a decision in this regard.
       Also, in violation of the requirements of Art. 317 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the arbitrazh court rendered a decision to issue a writ of execution in favor of the plaintiff to recover the debt in foreign currency, German marks, instead of roubles.