🇷🇺 🇰🇿 In brief, Russian courts have recognized several decisions rendered by Kazakh courts (Cases No. А50-4304/2025, А46-4985/2025, А40-298656/2024). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

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

The Review for the first half of 2024 is here.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇪 A Russian court has recognised a judgment issued by a Dubai court—good news. However, the Russian court based its reasoning, inter alia, on the 1958 New York Convention. That is less encouraging (Case No. А53-35288/2024). #Dubai

P.S. From time to time, and over the decades, Russian courts have applied the 1958 New York Convention to decisions of foreign courts. While it is an incorrect approach, that is the current situation. You can find my publications, which address incorrect case-law practices, in both Russian and English.

For the English version, see the Kluwer Arbitration Blog; for the Russian version, see my Telegram.

🇬🇧https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/09/25/the-material-scope-of-the-1958-new-york-convention-russian-courts-make-it-broader/

🇷🇺https://t.me/lawandsky/329


ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺 🇨🇾 A Russian court, in case No. A40-279675/2024, has refused to recognize a judgment issued by a Cypriot court, which ordered a debtor to pay EUR 22 million to the applicant (a company). In addition to classical grounds—such as sanctions and references to the 1958 New York Convention—some new arguments have also emerged.

First, the applicant’s beneficiary is the subject of an international criminal arrest warrant. Therefore, in the court’s view, a judgment in favor of the company and its enforcement would result in the beneficiary’s enrichment, which would be contrary to public policy.

Second, the debtor accused the applicant of engaging in fraudulent transactions. According to the court, the applicant’s beneficiary should have appeared before the Russian court to testify regarding the circumstances of these transactions. #Cyprus

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 A Russian court—while considering the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award from Kazakhstan—granted interim measures and ordered the freezing of 89 million RUB belonging to the debtor (Case No. A06-3796/2025). Generally, Russian courts are reluctant to grant interim measures, particularly in support of international arbitration. #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇺🇸 For those of you following the Citibank case in Russia, the Russian Supreme Court has published its decision, dated May 12, 2025, in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In Case No. А40-118242/2024, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce an ICC arbitral award (decision dated February 7, 2025). A cassation court upheld this decision on May 12, 2025. The courts held that enforcement would contradict a Russian presidential counter-sanction decree and would violate public policy.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇸🇬 According to the Russian court, when the seat of arbitration is located in a country that has imposed sanctions against Russia, the neutrality of the arbitration is compromised. In this case, the courts—a court of first instance and a cassation court—refused to recognize an award issued under the auspices of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), despite the participation of a Russian party in the arbitration (Case No. А45-1031/2025). #Singapore

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇩🇪 Updated: A cassation court, in its decision dated May 14, 2025, confirmed that the 'Lugovoy Law' does not apply if the claimant is a foreign company. In case No. A66-19469/2024, involving German and Russian parties, the dispute was referred to a German court. #Germany #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺 The Russian courts recognized an ICSID Additional Facility Award. The parties to the ICSID Additional Facility proceeding were a Russian investor and a state subject to EU and U.S. sanctions.

In parallel, the courts rejected the debtor's argument that the arbitral proceedings violated the principles of impartiality and objectivity on the grounds that the arbitrators were from "unfriendly" countries (Bulgaria 🇧🇬, Switzerland 🇨🇭/Brazil 🇧🇷, and Canada 🇨🇦).

The courts noted that the arbitral panel was composed of arbitrators from countries that were, and still are, considered "unfriendly" to both parties involved in the ICSID Additional Facility proceedings. Therefore, it can be inferred that the courts considered the parties to have been on equal footing.

⚖️References to the court decisions (Case No А40-46865/2024):

- First-instance court ruling dated November 5, 2024.

- Appeal court decision dated February 5, 2025.

- Cassation court decision dated April 29, 2025.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇪 A Russian court has recognized and enforced a Dubai court decision. As usual, the court was guided by the 1958 New York Convention, among other instruments. Case No. А53-23536/24 is the second instance in which a Dubai court decision has been recognized in Russia (see Case No. А53-35288/24). #Dubai

ProArbitration.Ru✈

Update: On May 27, 2025, a cassation court overturned the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. The court emphasized that, during the new proceedings, Russian counter-sanctions measures must be taken into account (Case No. А56-28968/2024). #Latvia

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📈📉 Over the past decade, a total of 2,395 cases concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign adjudicatory acts were considered by Russian arbitrazh courts, of which 1,519 were successful—resulting in an average success rate of 63%.
***
Over the decade from 2014 to 2024, Russian state courts (arbitrazh courts) considered a total of 2,395 cases related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral awards. This averages out to approximately 239 cases per year.

Out of these 2,395 cases, applications were granted in 1,519 instances, meaning that a foreign court decision or foreign arbitral award was recognized and enforced in Russia. This corresponds to an average of 151 cases per year.

The average rate of successful applications is 63%.

Note:

1. Separate data on the enforcement and recognition of foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral awards is not available publicly.

2. The figures do not include cases considered by courts of general jurisdiction or bankruptcy cases where recognition of foreign court decisions or arbitral awards might also arise.

For the text in Russian, click here.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

Russia’s Constitutional Court refused to hear a complaint over a law allowing courts to assert exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned Russian parties.

My blog post on Constitutional Court Ruling No. 999-O of April 29, 2025, is here: https://smnlaw.ru/constitutional-court-refused

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 On June 2, 2025, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce a Kazakh court decision, finding that the Russian party against whom the Kazakh decision was issued had not been duly served in the legal proceedings (Case No А67-2581/2025). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In the Sibur case, the Russian Supreme Court reaffirmed that if unilateral sanctions were (or are) the cause of a dispute—for example, if a contract was not performed due to the imposition of restrictive measures—then Russian arbitrazh courts (state courts) courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, regardless of any arbitration clause. The dispute in that case involved bonds and included an LCIA arbitration clause (Russian Supreme Court decision dated May 30, 2025, in Case No. А40-116513/2024).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇲🇩 On June 5, 2025, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce a Moldovan court decision, finding that the Russian party against whom the decision was issued had not been duly served in the legal proceedings. In particular, the Russian party had been informed of the proceedings through newspaper publications, which contradicts an international treaty to which both the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova are contracting parties (Case No А53-354/2025). #Moldova

ProArbitration.Ru✈

A Russian court has refused to grant injunctions on freezing assets in support of arbitration seated in Moscow.

A claimant sought to freeze funds, stating that it had commenced arbitration proceedings. It requested the court to issue injunctions, alleging that the defendant was dissipating assets.

In its ex parte ruling dated June 10, 2025, the court found that the claimant's application did not meet the requirements for the granting of an injunction, as the claimant had failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant (Case No А40-140011/2025).

ProArbitration.Ru✈