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✈

UPD. 🇷🇺🇰🇿 An appeal court has confirmed that a decision of the Court of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC Court) does not fall within Article 54 of the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters (Chisinau, October 7, 2002) or Article 409 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

By its decision dated February 21, 2025, the appeal court rejected the appeal against decisions of the Altai Regional Court dated November 1, 2024, which had denied an application for the recognition and enforcement of the AIFC Court's decisions in two cases.

The applicant may file a cassation appeal before a cassation court and subsequently before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

📑 See the decisions of the 5th Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction dated February 21, 2025, in case N 66-139/2025 and in case N 66-140/2025, in Russian. #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📘 The Review of Russian court practice on arbitration and cross-border litigation for the second half of 2024 is now available. It is currently only available in Russian. // To those wishing to join us, welcome!

ProArbitration.Ru✈

Vietnam’s national oil and gas company has lost its cassation appeal before the Russian Supreme Court.

In Case No. А40-20468/2024, the lower courts had recognized a US$500 million SIAC award in Russia.

On March 12, 2025, the Russian Supreme Court rejected the company's cassation appeal for reconsideration of the case.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇨🇳 An application for the recognition and enforcement of a court judgment issued by a Chinese court in Russia must comply with Article 17 of the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters.

In Case No. A56-120092/2023, a Chinese company sought the recognition and enforcement of a court judgment issued by a Chinese court in the Russian Federation.

On March 17, 2025, a Russian court discontinued the proceedings. As noted by the court, the Chinese company's application did not comply with Article 17 of the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters (signed in Beijing on June 19, 1992), which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments and came into force on November 14, 1993.

According to Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the judgment. That court is then responsible for transmitting the judgment to a court in the other Contracting Party’s country.

Therefore, in this case, the Chinese company should have applied to a Chinese court, not a Russian court. Consequently, the Russian court discontinued the proceedings. #China

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇨🇭On March 11, 2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced a Swiss arbitral award (Case No. А40-221290/2023). This is good news. However, in doing so, the court referred, inter alia, to the 'Lugovoy Law'—a point that remains unclear. If the court lacked effective jurisdiction over the case, the 'Lugovoy Law' does not provide a strong basis for establishing such jurisdiction. Well, let's see if the case proceeds further. #Lugovoi #Switzerland

ProArbitration.Ru✈

The Russian Constitutional Court may consider whether the “Lugovoy Law” complies with the Russian Constitution. The applicant argues that the “Lugovoy Law” breaches the Constitution by granting Russian courts jurisdiction to block arbitration through anti-arbitration injunctions in both “friendly” and “unfriendly” countries. According to the applicant, the “Lugovoy Law” should not restrict arbitration in “friendly” jurisdictions. #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇩🇪 A Germany-based company filed a legal action in a Russian court. However, the court declined jurisdiction and referred the parties to their chosen court—a German court (Case No. А66-19469/2024). Notably, this is not the first instance in which a foreign company has unsuccessfully attempted to override a forum selection clause by invoking case law on the 'Lugovoy Law.' #Germany #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇩🇪 UPD. In case No. А56-49800/2024, a cassation court overturned the lower court's decision that had recognized a German court ruling in Russia, and referred the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

The cassation court noted that the lower court should examine whether there was an actual contractual relationship between the parties and whether a Russian presidential decree on counter-sanctions should be applied. #Germany

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇿 In brief, a Russian court has recognized a decision rendered by an Azerbaijani court (Case No. А32-5059/2025). #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇧🇾 A Belarusian court heard a case in violation of an ICC arbitration clause and rendered a decision, but a Russian court refused to recognize the Belarusian court's decision (Case No. А56-6573/2025). #Belarus

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇺🇿 In brief, a Russian court has recognized a decision rendered by an Uzbekistan court (Case No. А07-6374/2025). #Uzbekistan

ProArbitration.Ru✈