🇷🇺🇯🇵 Neither an arbitration clause nor a jurisdiction clause applies if a party to litigation, a Russian one, has been affected by sanctions. A new decision has just been issued. A court orders a Japan bank to pay about JPY 95 million to a Russian sanctioned bank, while objections to jurisdiction based on a jurisdiction clause in favour of a Japan court rejected (Case No. А40-226781/2023). #Japan

ProArbitration.Ru✈️

🇷🇺⚖️ The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarifies that a foreign creditor seeking enforcement of a Russian court judgment must have a Russian bank account. If no such account exists, the Federal Bailiff Service of the Russian Federation will decline to commence enforcement proceedings. A bank account of a Russian representative of the foreign debtor is not accepted (the decision in case No 306-ЭС24-1663 of 27 May 2024). It is likely that this approach will extend to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign court judgments in Russia.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇩🇪 A Russian court has recognized a Germany court decision. The Russian court rejected the defendant's objection based on restrictive measures (unilateral sanctions) against the Russian Federation. The defendant pointed out that the Republic of Germany had imposed restrictive measures against the Russian Federation, so that recognition of the the foreign decision would be contrary to Russian public policy. This objection was rejected as unfounded (Case No А56-49800/2024). #Germany

ProArbitration.Ru✈

⚖️ A Russian court, considering a bankruptcy case, has recognized arbitral award issued under ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules. However, the court is silent on whether the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies to the award (Case No А40-46865/24-109-128).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📝 The "Lugovoy Law" has no limits. Any obstacle to bringing a case to arbitration renders an arbitration agreement ineffective. A case goes to a state court. Although a decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation deals with the LCIA, I see no reason why the same approach should not be applicable to any arbitral institution. One would say that there are "unfriendly" institutions and there are "friendly" ones. Is that right? Should I recall court decisions against "friendly" institutions? There is no dividing line between "friendly" and "unfriendly" institutions, but there is something else (the decision in case No 305-ЭС24-13398 of 28 November 2024). #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 A Russian court has rejected an application for recognition and enforcement of a decision of the Court of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC Court). According to the Russian court, the decision of the AIFC Court does not fall within the scope of Article 54 of the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Chisinau, 7 October 2002) (the Kishinev Convention). Article 54 of the Kishinev Convention deals with the recognition and enforcement of judgments. #Kazakhstan

The decisions of the Altai regional court dated 01 November 2024, in Russian, are attached (see above).

P.S. Thanks to Alexander Muranov for the overview of cases in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In PESA v. UralTransMash, a Russian cassation court endorses the principle of arbitrator bias. In the eyes of the court, two of three arbitrators were from "unfriendly" countries. In the course of the SCC arbitration proceedings, the party against whom the award was made challenged the appointment of an arbitrator, but the challenge was rejected. Thus, according to the court, two of three arbitrators were biased (!) (the decision in case А60-24839/2024 of 2 December 2024).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📌 Russian counter-sanctions measures are not a barrier to enforcing an arbitral award in Russia.

In Hiperion, a Sweden-based company obtained an arbitral award against a Russian-based company from a Russian arbitral institution. The arbitral creditor then sought the enforcement of the arbitral award. The arbitral debtor objected, pointing out that the enforcement would be in breach of Russian counter-sanctions measures.

The case was considered by courts several times. But in the end, the Supreme Court, by its order dated 12 December 2024, dismissed a cassation appeal brought by the arbitral creditor. The Supreme Court indicated that Russian counter-sanctions measures are not a barrier to granting enforcement of an arbitral award (Case No А07-32862/2022).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇳🇴 A Russian investor, a natural person, seeks protection for his investments in the Kingdom of Norway before a Russian court. At the present stage of the proceedings, the court must decide whether the Kingdom of Norway enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of the Russian courts (Case No А35–6794/2023). #Norway

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇸🇬 A US$500 million SIAC award is recognized in Russia. A Russian cassation court has upheld a lower court's decision recognizing the US$500 million SIAC award in Russia. The award was issued in favour of a sanctioned Russian engineering group against Vietnam’s national oil and gas company (Case No. А40-20468/2024, decision dated 23 December 2024).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺 A Russian court has ruled that Russian counter-sanctions do not exempt a party from fulfilling its contractual obligations nor prevent the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards within Russia.

An arbitral creditor (a foreign company) sought the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral award in Russia. The award was rendered under the Rules of the Baltic Court of Arbitration (the Republic of Latvia 🇱🇻). A party against whom the award was made (a Russian company) opposed enforcement and referred to the Russian Presidential Decrees on counter-sanction measures. The Russian company argued that the arbitral creditor originates from an 'unfriendly' country, and therefore, enforcement would be contrary to Russian public policy.

On December 28, 2024, the court rejected the objection raised by the Russian company. It held that Russian counter-sanctions measures neither relieve contractual obligations nor prevent the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Russia. Consequently, the court recognized and enforced the arbitral award (Case No А56-28968/2024). #Latvia

📌 The approach in case А56-28968/2024 aligns with the Hiperion case, in which the Supreme Court of Russia held that Russian counter-sanction measures do not constitute a barrier to the enforcement of an arbitral award (See the post dated December 18, 2024).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In brief, a Russian court has recognized and enforced:

- an arbitral award rendered under the Rules of the International arbitration court at the Belarusian 🇧🇾 Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Case No А40-268283/2024, the decision dated December 26, 2024). #Belarus

- a court decision rendered by the Bukhara Regional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿 (Case No А40-224991/2024, the decision dated December 23, 2024). #Uzbekistan

- a court decision rendered by the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of Kostanay Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 (Case No А76-37007/2024, the decision dated December 17, 2024). #Kazakhstan

A Russian court refused the recognition and enforcement of a court decision rendered by the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of Kyzylorda Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿. The court found that the defendant was not duly notified on the court proceedings in Kazakhstan (Case No А27-21432/2024, the decision dated December 18, 2024). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📖 A few years ago, my colleagues and I contributed to a book titled Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Russia and Former USSR States, published by Wolters Kluwer.

Good news:

The book has now been added to the library of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). It is also available in the libraries of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Peace Palace, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In brief, a Russian court 🇷🇺 has recognized and enforced:

- a court decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 (Case No А40-209265/2024, the decision dated January 15, 2025). #Kazakhstan

- a court decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Belarus 🇧🇾 (Case No А40-205209/2024, the decision dated January 14, 2025). #Belarus

ProArbitration.Ru✈