Mutual recognition of foreign judicial decisions in Russia: analysis of changes over the past two years

The recognition of foreign judicial decisions in Russia remains a difficult task, due to the influence of public order and geopolitics. In recent years, courts have increasingly rejected decisions from unfriendly countries, especially in the context of sanctions, while decisions from friendly jurisdictions are viewed more loyally. The recognition of international arbitration decisions also turns out to be easier than the decisions of State courts.

Fundamentals of recognition of foreign decisions

Russian legislation provides for both the recognition of decisions of state courts and arbitration courts.

The former are recognized on the basis of international conventions (such as the Minsk and Chisinau conventions) and bilateral treaties (Russia currently has 96 of them). If there is no contract, the courts can apply the principle of reciprocity.

A more universal system is in place for arbitral awards — the New York Convention of 1958 (172 participating countries). However, in practice, courts sometimes confuse these conventions by applying one to the other.

Trends in judicial practice

In the last one and a half to two years, new trends have been observed in the approaches of courts to recognizing foreign decisions. Since 2022, Russian courts have begun to evaluate decisions more strictly, especially those countries that have imposed sanctions against Russia. Public order has become a key reason for refusing recognition, expanding its importance in the face of sanctions pressure.

The courts have begun to interpret public policy more broadly, including counter-sanctions measures. An example is the Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse SA case against Infotech Novo, where the court refused to recognize the award, citing a threat to public order.

The principle of reciprocity and sanctions

The application of the principle of reciprocity has become more difficult, as it is necessary to prove the existence of sanctions restrictions on the part of the country that issued the decision. In the case of IP Vitaly Anaikin v. Uzavtocenter, the court refused to recognize the decision of the American court, since the applicant did not provide evidence of compliance with the principle of reciprocity after the imposition of sanctions.

Differences in approaches to unfriendly and friendly jurisdictions

Courts have become more cautious about decisions from unfriendly countries. If the decision is made in the interests of the Russian side, it can be recognized, while decisions in the interests of persons from unfriendly jurisdictions are more often rejected. For example, in case “C. Thywissen GmbH v. Novosibirsk Bakery, the court pointed to doubts about the impartiality of arbitrators from unfriendly countries.

Forecasts for the future

Experts suggest that in 2025, the procedure for recognizing decisions from friendly jurisdictions such as China and the UAE may be simplified due to the strengthening of trade ties. However, decisions from unfriendly countries will still be at risk of non-enforcement due to counter-sanctions regulation and an expansive interpretation of public policy.

A change in current approaches is possible if the Supreme Court of Russia adopts new clarifications or decisions that change existing practice. It is important to note that new sanctions and changes in international politics may significantly affect judicial practice and recognition of foreign decisions in Russia.

Share: