ALRUD Presented a Guide To The Enforcement Of Russian Judgements Abroad

ALRUD presented a large study on the international recognition of Russian judgments, prepared jointly with foreign law firms from the nine jurisdictions with which the Russian private sector has the closest economic ties.

This is the first study on the Russian market that includes analyses of applicable legislation and current court practice in the PRC and Hong Kong (Fangda Partners), Singapore (Braddell Brothers), India (Khaitan & Co), Kazakhstan (Tukulov & Kassilgov Litigation), UAE (Horizons & Co Law Firm), Turkey (Hergüner), Israel (Herzog Fox & Neeman), and Cyprus (Patrikios Legal).

The content is presented in the format of a guide, which, for each of the jurisdictions reviewed, provides in-depth coverage of the general procedural aspects of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as the current experience of mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments between Russia and the countries reviewed. It also touches upon the prospects of recognising Russian court judgments involving sanctions, including judgments issued under Article 248.1 of the APC of the Russian Federation.

• Despite the difficult geopolitical situation, the possibility of Russian decisions gaining recognition remains. This is not always related to the presence of an international treaty, although it is an undoubted plus. For example, the recognition of Russian decisions in Cyprus is based on an agreement. At the same time, whether or not there is a similar agreement with China and India, such recognition is very limited or absent entirely.

• At the same time, stable recognition of Russian decisions on the basis of reciprocity, in the absence of a prevailing international treaty, has been established and continues to develop in Turkey.

• In some cases, the absence of real examples of reciprocity does not exclude the possibility of recognising a decision on the basis thereof. For example, in the UAE, the Dubai Court of Appeal noted that the fact that Russia does not refuse to recognise decisions of UAE courts (the concept of ‘negative’ reciprocity) is sufficient for the recognition of a decision. Similarly, the Israeli Supreme Court noted that confirmation of a reasonable potential for the mutual recognition of judgments is sufficient.

• The mere fact that sanctions have been imposed on a Russian claimant seeking to enforce a judgment abroad is not an a priori obstacle to the recognition of the judgment in most of the jurisdictions analysed. For example, in Israel, a judgement rendered in favour of a large sanctioned Russian bank was recognised. At the same time, in most cases, foreign lawyers express concern that the Russian court's references to Article 248.1 of the APC of the Russian Federation may reduce the chances of recognition of such decisions abroad.

• In order to minimise the risks associated with the peculiarities and significant differences in the procedures for recognition of state court decisions, it is advisable to consider submitting a dispute to international arbitration at the stage of concluding a given agreement. Arbitration has the advantages of a single legal context in the form of the 1958 New York Convention and the fact that it is a private form of justice, so any political agenda will be minimised.

The full study is available upon request by completing the registration form below.