🇷🇺🇰🇿 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✈

📌 Once again, Russian counter-sanctions do not obstruct the enforcement of arbitral awards in Russia.

In case А32-25587/2024, a foreign company from the Netherlands 🇳🇱 sought to enforce an arbitral award issued against a Russian company. The seat of arbitration was in Russia 🇷🇺.

A court of first instance refused to enforce the award. The court, inter alia, referred to Russian counter-sanctions measures as grounds to deny enforcement.

A court of cassation disagrees with the lower court's approach.

⚖️ The court of cassation emphasizes:

(1) there are exhaustive grounds for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards with its seat in Russia; and

(2) Russian counter-sanctions measures do not constitute a barrier to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Russia.

Thus, by its decision dated January 27, 2025, the court of cassation revoked the ruling of the court of first instance; the case is to be reconsidered (decision in case А32-25587/2024 of 27 January 2025). #Netherlands

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📌 A notice of court proceedings delivered via a messenger service is improper.

In practice, foreign courts (such as those in Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 and Uzbekistan 🇺🇿) notify Russian parties of court proceedings via Telegram, WhatsApp.

When foreign court decisions are submitted to Russia 🇷🇺 for recognition, Russian courts refuse (may refuse) to recognize them, citing improper notification on the court proceedings.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📘 The Review of Russian court practice on arbitration and cross-border litigation for the first half of 2024 is now available in English.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📌 Lugovoy Law. A cassation court, in case No. А42-3659/2024, states that the "Lugovoy Law" is not applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Therefore, an applicant cannot rely on the "Lugovoy Law" when seeking an anti-enforcement injunction before a Russian court (the decision of February 10,2025). #Lugovoy

The approach is in line with the decision of the Russian Supreme Court in case No. 309-ЭС21-6955 (1-3) of December 9, 2021. 📑

ProArbitration.Ru✈

PESA lost its attempt to enforce a €55 million SCC award in Russia. The Supreme Court of Russia, in its ruling dated February 17, rejected PESA's cassation appeal for reconsideration of the case (PESA v UralTransMash, Case No А60-24839/2024).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📌 The 'Lugovoy Law,' which allows Russian individuals and companies to bring disputes before Russian courts and enables those courts to block parallel arbitration or legal proceedings abroad, does not apply to foreign companies. As a result, foreign companies cannot rely on this law. #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈