Urgent issues of disputes about recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia

Nowadays, a FJ generally can be recognized and enforced in Russia if a bilateral or multilateral international agreement exists. Russia is a party of numerous (more than 30) treaties that govern the R&E issues entered by Russia and the USSR.

It's more difficult to recognize and enforce an FJ if it was rendered in a country which doesn't have a relevant treaty with Russia: in these cases, Russian courts may review a case on the principles of reciprocity and international comity (see leading case Re: MCBL (UK) v STC "Microsurgery of eye named S. Fyodorov" (Russia)). After that case, Russian courts have turned to wide application of this approach concerning English, Dutch, Finnish, Japanese judgments. Whether the reciprocity rule has to be applied or not generally it is done on a case-by-case basis. The main evidence for this question is the legal opinions of foreign law professors.

Under Russian procedural law, only final judgment on merits can be recognized and enforced. It means that orders for interim injunctions cannot be R&Eed. Therefore, a party which seeks to obtain injunctions in Russia must ask directly from a Russian court. Also, that is not clear whether decisions that approve settlement agreements are subject to R&E.

The general grounds for a refusal to R&E in Russia are violation of exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts, improper notification and the most controversial – a violation of public policy. It's common when lower courts refuse to R&E and then higher courts overrule the decision and direct the case for re-examination (see the most recent case: "YKK Shipping Ltd."(Cyprus) v "Caspian-SK" LLC (2019)).

Despite the above risks, in general, the Russian courts in most R&E disputes make positive decisions (about 65% of the applications were satisfied based on the results of 2018). That’s why we can conclude that Russia is a R&E-friendly country.

Image: pixabay.com