Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Russia in 2026: Requirements, Procedures, and Enforcement Landscape

 

July 12, 2026

BRACE Law Firm©

 

The institution of recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments represents a key element of the international civil process, ensuring the effectiveness of cross-border legal protection. Its development directly depends on the dynamics of international relations, changes in national legislation, and the evolution of court practice. This article reviews the recognition procedure and current trends in the enforcement landscape.

International Legal Framework for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

The legal regime for recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments in the Russian Federation relies on multilateral and bilateral international treaties, as well as the principles of private international law.

Historically, the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters of 1993 (the "Minsk Convention") established the foundation for the mutual recognition of court judgments in the CIS. However, upon the entry into force of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters of 2002 (the "Chisinau Convention") in relations among the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Republic of Armenia, the 1993 Minsk Convention ceased to apply (for Russia, effective June 28, 2023).[1] The Minsk Convention continues to govern relations with states for which the Chisinau Convention has not entered into force (Article 120(4) of the Chisinau Convention): these include, in particular, the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, and Turkmenistan; in relations with Ukraine, the Minsk Convention ceased to apply on May 19, 2024, due to Ukraine's withdrawal from it.

The Chisinau Convention, which entered into force for Russia on June 28, 2023, currently serves as the primary multilateral treaty for Russia in this sphere. The term "civil cases", used in this convention, also encompasses cases concerning the resolution of economic disputes (Article 1(3)).

Each participating country recognizes and enforces the following decisions rendered in the territories of other participating countries (Article 54):

• Decisions of justice institutions in civil and family cases, including court-approved settlement agreements in such cases and notarial acts regarding monetary obligations;
• Verdicts (decisions) of courts in criminal cases concerning damages, fine collection, and confiscation;
• Court decisions on the attachment of assets, including funds in bank accounts, to secure a claim.

Pursuant to Articles 56 and 57 of the Chisinau Convention, the prevailing party files the motion for recognition and enforcement of a decision with the competent court of the country where the decision is to be enforced. The party may also file it with the court that rendered the decision in the first instance. This court then forwards the motion for recognition and enforcement of its decision to the court competent to rule on the motion.

The applicant must attach the following documents to the motion:

• The decision or a certified copy thereof, alongside an official document stating that the decision has entered into legal force and is subject to enforcement, or that it is subject to enforcement prior to entering into legal force, unless this follows from the decision itself;
• Proof indicating that the party against whom the decision was rendered and who did not participate in the proceedings was properly and timely summoned to court, and in the event of their procedural incapacity, was properly represented;
• Evidence confirming the partial enforcement of the decision at the time of its forwarding;
• A document validating the agreement of the parties in cases of contractual jurisdiction.

The applicant must provide a certified translation of the motion for recognition and enforcement and the attached documents into the language of the requested participating country or into Russian.

The courts of the country in whose territory the enforcement is to be carried out consider motions for recognition and enforcement of decisions. The court considering the motion limits its review to establishing that the conditions provided for by the Chisinau Convention are met. If the conditions are met, the court renders a decision on enforcement.

The laws of the country where enforcement takes place dictate the procedure for recognizing and enforcing decisions.

The Chisinau Convention also contains its own exhaustive list of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement (Article 59): in particular, rendering a decision in violation of the Convention's provisions, its failure to enter into legal force, untimely or improper service of the court summons on the defendant, the existence of a previously rendered decision on an identical dispute, assigning the case to the exclusive competence of the institutions of the requested party, the absence of a document regarding a contractual jurisdiction agreement, the expiration of the statute of limitations for enforcement, and the contradiction of the recognition and enforcement to the public policy of the requested party.

Furthermore, the Protocol dated June 26, 2025, introduced amendments to the Minsk Convention, applicable from March 25, 2026: court orders are included among the mutually recognized and enforced acts, and a document confirming its service or dispatch to the debtor must accompany the motion for the mandatory enforcement of a court order (Articles 51, 53, and 55 of the Convention as amended). [2] A similar Protocol to the Chisinau Convention was signed on June 26, 2025, but has not entered into force as of the date of this article.

The Agreement on the Procedure for Resolving Disputes Related to Economic Activities (Kyiv, March 20, 1992) (the "1992 Kyiv Agreement") retains particular significance for economic disputes.[3] It serves as a special treaty for disputes between economic entities of the CIS member states: it establishes the mutual recognition and enforcement of competent courts' decisions that have entered into legal force, outlines the list of documents attached to the motion (Article 8), and provides an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing enforcement that is not subject to broad interpretation (Article 9).

When considering such applications, courts apply the provisions of the 1992 Kyiv Agreement and the rules of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC RF) to the extent they do not contradict this Agreement. A debtor's argument about incomplete or biased examination of case circumstances by a foreign court cannot serve as grounds for refusal, as it is absent from the Article 9 list and aims to review the decision on the merits.

Another document determining the procedure for enforcing court judgments is the Hague Convention dated July 2, 2019, on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague Convention").

The Hague Convention establishes a simplified and unified recognition regime, prohibiting the review of a judgment on the merits and providing an exhaustive list of grounds for refusal (e.g., violation of public policy). It applies to the recognition and enforcement of court judgments in civil and commercial matters. It strictly does not apply to cases related to tax collection, customs, and administrative matters. The Convention entered into force on September 1, 2023 (initially for European Union member states, except Denmark, and Ukraine; for the United Kingdom, from July 1, 2025).[4]

Russia signed this document in accordance with the Order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 83-rp dated April 8, 2021,[5] but has not ratified it as of the current date, and therefore it remains inapplicable in relations involving Russia.

The current mechanism for enforcing foreign decisions in the territory of Russia relies heavily on the rules of the APC RF (Chapter 31) and the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Chapter 45), which mandate the existence of a corresponding international treaty of the Russian Federation (for arbitration courts, an international treaty and a federal law).

The Russian Federation participates in numerous bilateral legal assistance treaties that establish a simplified exequatur procedure. Such treaties operate, in particular, with China (Treaty on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated June 19, 1992), India, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and several other countries. The absence of an international treaty in itself does not act as an absolute bar to recognizing a court judgment: judicial practice has developed an approach where courts can recognize foreign court judgments based on the generally accepted principles of international comity (comitas gentium) and reciprocity. However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has yet to form a unified position on this issue, and Article 241 of the APC RF inextricably links recognition to the existence of an international treaty and a federal law, meaning practitioners should assess the prospects for enforcing a decision from a "non-treaty" jurisdiction based on the current practice of a specific circuit.

Unlike decisions of foreign state courts, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards proceeds primarily based on the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (New York Convention), which binds over 170 participating states and does not depend on the existence of a bilateral treaty. Certain international treaties establish a simplified procedure: for example, the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus dated January 17, 2001[6] (ratified by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated July 11, 2002; entered into force on July 29, 2002) allows for the enforcement of judicial acts without an exequatur procedure, acting solely upon a writ of execution from the court that rendered the decision.

In Select Engagement No. A53-23536/2024, the court rejected the debtor's arguments that the judicial act avoided recognition and enforcement due to the lack of a corresponding agreement between Russia and the United Arab Emirates. The court noted that "one of the generally recognized principles of international law is the principle of international comity, which prescribes that states treat a foreign legal order politely and courteously. Furthermore, the principle of reciprocity, originating from the principle of international comity, stands out among other generally recognized principles of international law. In a substantive legal context, courts should understand the principle of reciprocity as a rule that foreign law is subject to mutual application to foster cooperation between states. The United Arab Emirates and the Russian Federation have participated in the 1958 Convention since November 19, 2006, which provides for the procedure for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Meanwhile, the absence of an international treaty between Russia and the UAE is not in itself a ground for refusing the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment. The court also factored in that the Dubai court recognizes and enforces the decisions of Russian courts".[7] Notably, the court of first instance initially denied the application by citing public policy, but the circuit court, by its ruling dated January 31, 2025, in the same case, overturned the refusal, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of this reservation and placing the burden of its justification on the objecting party; upon a new hearing, the court granted the bank's application.

Legal Regulation of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in Russia

Domestic regulations governing the procedure for recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments in Russia vary depending on the category of the dispute, managed by two procedural codes.

Chapter 31 of the APC RF dictates the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in disputes arising from entrepreneurial and other economic activities.

Article 241 of the APC RF establishes a general rule: arbitration courts of the Russian Federation recognize and enforce such decisions if provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation and federal laws.

The prevailing party files the motion for recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards with the arbitration court of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation at the debtor's location or place of residence, or, if their location or place of residence remains unknown, at the location of the debtor's assets (Article 242 of the APC RF).

The applicant may submit the motion to the arbitration court on paper or electronically, including in the form of an electronic document, and the claimant or their representative must sign it.

The motion must indicate:

• Name of the arbitration court receiving the motion;
• Specifics and location of the foreign court, or the name and composition of the arbitral tribunal or international commercial arbitration, and its location;
• Claimant's legal name, location, or place of residence;
• Debtor's legal name, location, or place of residence;
• Details of the foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award whose recognition and enforcement the claimant seeks;
• Formal request of the claimant for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award;
• List of the attached documents.

The motion may also include telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses of the claimant, the debtor, their representatives, and other relevant information.

The applicant must attach the following to the motion:

• A properly certified copy of the foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award whose recognition and enforcement the claimant pursues;
• A properly certified document confirming that the foreign court judgment has entered into legal force, unless the text of the decision itself states this;
• A properly certified document verifying that the debtor received timely and proper notice of the case proceedings in the foreign court whose decision the claimant seeks to recognize and enforce;
• A power of attorney or other properly certified document validating the authority of the person who signed the motion to the arbitration court;
• A document proving the dispatch of a copy of the motion for recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment to the debtor;
• A properly certified translation of the documents into Russian.

Unless an international treaty provides otherwise, a motion for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award must include:

• A properly certified original foreign arbitral award or a properly certified copy thereof;
• The original arbitration agreement or a properly certified copy thereof;
• A properly certified translation of these documents into Russian.

The applicant must also provide a document confirming the payment of the state fee, which, in accordance with Subparagraph 13 of Paragraph 1 of Article 333.21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 259-FZ dated August 8, 2024), constitutes 30% of the state fee calculated under the rules of Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 333.21 of the Tax Code (applicable to filing a statement of claim of a property nature), based on the amount confirmed by the respective decision. The scale under Subparagraph 1 determines the base state fee amount, from which the court calculates the 30%:

• Up to 100,000 rubles – 10,000 rubles;
• From 100,001 rubles to 1,000,000 rubles – 10,000 rubles plus 5% of the amount exceeding 100,000 rubles;
• From 1,000,001 rubles to 10,000,000 rubles – 55,000 rubles plus 3% of the amount exceeding 1,000,000 rubles;
• From 10,000,001 rubles to 50,000,000 rubles – 325,000 rubles plus 1% of the amount exceeding 10,000,000 rubles;
• Over 50,000,000 rubles – 725,000 rubles plus 0.5% of the amount exceeding 50,000,000 rubles, capping at 10,000,000 rubles.

Arbitration courts accept documents issued, drawn up, or certified in the prescribed form by competent authorities of foreign states according to foreign law norms regarding Russian entities and citizens or foreign persons, provided the applicant legalizes these documents or affixes an apostille, unless an international treaty establishes otherwise. The applicant must accompany documents drawn up in a foreign language with their properly certified translation into Russian when submitting them to the arbitration court (Article 255 of the APC RF).

A single judge considers the motion under the rules for considering a case by a first-instance arbitration court within a period not exceeding one month from the date the arbitration court of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation receives it (Part 1 of Article 243 of the APC RF).

The arbitration court notifies the persons participating in the case of the time and place of the court hearing. The failure of these properly notified persons to appear does not obstruct the case hearing.

During the court session, the arbitration court determines the presence or absence of grounds for recognizing and enforcing the foreign court judgment and foreign arbitral award by examining the submitted evidence, evaluating the stated claims and objections, and reviewing clarifications from the foreign court or arbitral tribunal that rendered the decision, should the arbitration court request such clarifications.

The arbitration court strictly avoids reviewing the foreign court judgment on the merits.

If a motion to set aside or suspend the enforcement of a foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award remains pending before a foreign court, the Russian arbitration court considering the motion for recognition and enforcement may, upon the request of one of the parties, postpone its ruling on issuing a writ of execution. After the foreign court resolves the motion to set aside or suspend enforcement, the Russian arbitration court proceeds with the motion for recognition and enforcement, factoring in the judicial act rendered by the foreign court in accordance with international treaties and federal laws.

Article 244 of the APC RF lists the exhaustive grounds for refusing to recognize and enforce a foreign court judgment in whole or in part:

• The judgment lacks legal force under the law of the state in whose territory the court rendered it;
• The party against whom the decision was rendered did not receive timely and proper notice of the time and place of the case hearing, or faced other barriers preventing them from presenting their explanations to the court;
• The consideration of the case falls within the exclusive competence of a court in the Russian Federation according to an international treaty of the Russian Federation or a federal law, except for the instances specified in Part 5 of Article 248.1 of the APC RF. This clause clarifies that Article 248.1 of the APC RF does not preclude the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment or a foreign arbitral award rendered upon the claim of persons subject to restrictive measures, or if that person did not object to the foreign court or international commercial arbitration considering the dispute involving them, including not applying for an anti-suit injunction;
• A valid court judgment exists in the Russian Federation rendered on a dispute between the same parties, regarding the same subject matter, and based on the same grounds;
• A parallel case on a dispute between the same parties, regarding the same subject matter, and based on the same grounds is pending before a Russian court, with proceedings initiated before the foreign court assumed jurisdiction, or the Russian court was the first to accept a statement of claim on an identical dispute;
• The statute of limitations for bringing the foreign court judgment to mandatory enforcement has expired without the arbitration court reinstating this term;
• The enforcement of the foreign court judgment would contradict the public policy of the Russian Federation.

Furthermore, the arbitration court may refuse to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award in whole or in part on the grounds provided for by the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5338-1 dated July 7, 1993, On International Commercial Arbitration (Article 36), unless an international treaty of the Russian Federation stipulates otherwise (Part 2 of Article 244 of the APC RF; the listed grounds correspond to Article V of the New York Convention) – specifically, upon the request of the party against whom it is invoked, if that party furnishes proof to the competent court where recognition or enforcement is sought that:

• A party to the arbitration agreement suffered from some incapacity;
• The arbitration agreement holds no validity under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the tribunal made the award;
• The party against whom the award was made did not receive proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, including the time and place of the arbitral tribunal session, or otherwise could not present its case for valid reasons;
• The award addresses a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. If the tribunal can separate decisions on matters submitted to arbitration from those not so submitted, the court may recognize and enforce that part of the arbitral award containing decisions on matters submitted to arbitration;
• The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure deviated from the agreement of the parties or the law of the country where the arbitration took place;
• The award, made in the territory of a foreign state, has not yet become binding on the parties to the arbitration or has faced setting aside or suspension by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

Additionally, the court may refuse recognition if it determines that:

• The subject matter of the dispute lacks arbitrability under federal law;
• The recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award contradict the public policy of the Russian Federation.

Following its review, the arbitration court issues a ruling containing:

• The name and location of the foreign court, or the name and composition of the arbitral tribunal or international commercial arbitration that rendered the decision;
• The names of the claimant and the debtor;
• Details of the foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award whose recognition and enforcement the claimant sought;
• An explicit order for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award, or for a refusal to grant such recognition and enforcement.

A party may appeal an arbitration court's ruling regarding the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award in cassation to the circuit arbitration court within one month from the date of the ruling's issuance.

The recognition of judgments that do not require mandatory enforcement (e.g., dismissing a claim, recognizing a right, or establishing a legal fact) operates under separate regulations. Courts in the Russian Federation recognize such foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards without any further proceedings provided an interested party does not raise objections to their recognition with the arbitration court within one month after learning of the decision (Article 245.1 of the APC RF). The party files objections with the arbitration court of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation at the interested party's location or place of residence or the location of their assets, and in their absence in Russia, with the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow (Part 3 of Article 245.1 of the APC RF).

The mandatory enforcement of a foreign court judgment or a foreign arbitral award proceeds strictly based on a writ of execution issued by the arbitration court that rendered the ruling on recognition and enforcement. A party may present a foreign court judgment or a foreign arbitral award for mandatory enforcement within a period not exceeding three years from the date it enters into legal force. If a party misses this deadline, the arbitration court may reinstate it upon the claimant's motion (Article 246 of the APC RF).

Chapter 45 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (CPC RF), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments and Foreign Arbitral Awards, governs cases not related to economic disputes (e.g., family, labor, personal non-property disputes). The grounds for refusing mandatory enforcement listed in Article 412 of the CPC RF, alongside those for refusing recognition (Article 414 of the CPC RF), generally mirror the grounds provided by the APC RF.

Judicial Practice Regarding the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Since 2022, structural shifts have defined the approaches of Russian courts to the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Amidst mounting sanctions pressure, the approach of Russian courts toward recognizing foreign judgments has grown markedly stricter. This shift becomes evident when analyzing applications of reciprocity and the contradiction of foreign decisions with Russia's public policy; the latter has emerged as the most frequent ground for refusing enforcement.

As early as 2013, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation defined public policy as fundamental legal tenets (principles) possessing supreme peremptoriness, universality, special social and public significance, and forming the basis for constructing the state's economic, political, and legal system.[8]

Paragraph 51 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 53 dated December 10, 2019, On the Performance by Courts of the Russian Federation of the Functions of Assistance and Control in Relation to Arbitral Proceedings and International Commercial Arbitration establishes that, for the purposes of applying these rules, courts interpret public policy as the fundamental legal tenets (principles) possessing supreme peremptoriness, universality, special social and public significance, and constituting the foundation of the economic, political, and legal system of the Russian Federation.

A two-element standard stems from Paragraph 51 of the same Resolution: to justify a refusal by citing public policy, the court must establish, first, a violation of the fundamental principles constructing the economic, political, and legal system of the Russian Federation, which, second, may inflict damage upon the sovereignty or security of the state, affect the interests of large social groups, or violate the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals or legal entities. Courts apply the reservation in exceptional cases, ensuring it does not substitute for specific grounds for refusal: for instance, a violation of the notification procedure serves as an independent ground that does not necessitate invoking public policy.

Russian courts have increasingly adopted a broad interpretation of public policy due to the introduction of sanctions and counter-sanctions. Currently, Russian courts recognize diverse scenarios as violations of public policy.

This expanded interpretation intertwines closely with counter-sanctions regulations: courts classify decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and acts of the Government of the Russian Federation restricting the performance of obligations to persons from unfriendly states as integral to public policy. Additionally, Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the APC RF (introduced by Federal Law No. 171-FZ dated June 8, 2020) secure disputes involving sanctioned persons within the exclusive competence of Russian arbitration courts, providing mechanisms to issue an anti-suit injunction prohibiting the initiation or continuation of proceedings in a foreign court or international commercial arbitration. Courts weigh these provisions when assessing exclusive competence under Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 244 of the APC RF.

In Select Engagement No. A63-2940/2022, an offshore company filed a motion seeking the recognition and enforcement in Russia of an arbitral award by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) establishing and including a debt in the register of creditors' claims of a debtor – a Russian company.

The judicial instances found that [the claimant] is one of the enterprises of a Lebanese holding. The specified organizations <...> and their interdependent organizations, as well as the officers and controlling persons of these organizations, have been conducting and are currently conducting entrepreneurial, investment, and other activities for a long time in the territories and economic zones of states recognized as unfriendly in the manner prescribed by law". The courts further stressed that "the imposition of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation by foreign states cannot but create doubts that the respective dispute will be considered in the territory of a foreign state in compliance with the guarantees of a fair trial, including those relating to the impartiality of the court, which constitutes one of the elements of access to justice. The disputed foreign arbitral award violates the public policy of the Russian Federation. There are no legal grounds for enforcing it in the territory of the Russian Federation.[9] The phrasing regarding "doubts about impartiality" mirrors the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, specifically referenced by the circuit court (Ruling No. 304-ES24-2799 dated July 26, 2024).

In Select Engagement No. A40-221290/2023, a Russian JSC petitioned for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Granting the request, the courts observed that "under the conditions of general sanctions pressure and other political factors, and the adoption of restrictive measures against the company and its officers, including by the European Union, of which the debtor is a resident member, the claimant is practically deprived of the right of access to justice. The recognition and enforcement of the specified decision in the territory of Russia is effectively the only method available to the claimant to protect its violated right". [10]

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation firmly upholds these approaches at the highest level. Thematic Review No. 8/2026, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11A/2026 dated June 17, 2026,[11] directs that when considering a motion for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in the territory of an unfriendly state, the court must verify its compliance with the public policy of the Russian Federation; when examining a dispute involving arbitrators representing unfriendly countries, "a lack of impartiality and objectivity is presumed until there is evidence confirming otherwise" (Paragraph 19 of the Review).

The Review further clarifies that enforcing an arbitral tribunal's award in favor of an organization from an unfriendly jurisdiction may constitute a violation of public policy – factoring in the temporary procedure for performing obligations established by the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation No. 81 dated March 1, 2022, No. 95 dated March 5, 2022, and No. 618 dated September 8, 2022, alongside the requirement in Part 2.2 of Article 30 of the Federal Law On Enforcement Proceedings demanding the claimant to specify an account in a Russian credit institution (Paragraph 20 of the Review).

Another prevalent ground centers on the failure to notify a party to the proceedings. In practice, notifying foreign entities presents distinct logistical challenges tied to mailing documents and utilizing addresses not mutually agreed upon by the parties. Moreover, courts rely on international treaties that dictate specific notification procedures.

Paragraph 55 of the Judicial Practice Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2019), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 27, 2019, emphasizes that notice of a judicial proceeding in a foreign court qualifies as proper if the applicant observes the notification procedure established by international treaties, or presents evidence of effective (actual) notice to the party about the judicial proceeding in the foreign court (proving the party possessed actual knowledge of the proceeding).

In Select Engagement No. A53-354/2025, a Moldovan company, joining a Russian company in whose interest it brought a derivative suit, petitioned the arbitration court to recognize and enforce a decision by the Court of Comrat, Vulcanesti Office, Republic of Moldova, dated September 17, 2024. The Moldovan court rendered the decision in a derivative suit against another Russian company, ordering the recovery of a debt amount of 370,055.65 US dollars, plus court costs.

Russia and the Republic of Moldova actively participate in the 1993 Minsk Convention, which regulates the conditions and procedure for the mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions across member states. Under Clause "a" of Article 51 of this convention, each contracting party recognizes and enforces decisions of justice institutions in civil and family cases, including court-approved settlement agreements and notarial acts regarding monetary obligations.

Denying the requested relief, the courts highlighted that the applicant notified the debtor of the Moldovan proceedings via a courier service (directed by the claimant's representative) and by publishing a notice in the press, whereas this method "contradicts the procedure established by the international treaty (the 1993 Convention), which provides for the dispatch of letters of request through the competent courts of the participating countries to ensure their official service". The debtor avoided participating in the court proceedings, and the applicant failed to prove the debtor had actual knowledge of the proceedings to present its explanations. Furthermore, lacking a jurisdiction agreement with the debtor to resolve the dispute in a Moldovan court, "the Court of Comrat (Vulcanesti Office) lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the specified legal entities", rendering the dispute subject to resolution strictly by an arbitration court in the Russian Federation.[12]

In Select Engagement No. A40-107975/2023, concerning the non-recognition of a decision of the Magistrates' Court in Tel Aviv regarding damages, the applicant argued that the decision rested on damages caused to an interested party in Israel under a contract to which the applicant was not a signatory, thereby making it an improper defendant. The court sustained this argument, confirming the applicant's status as an improper defendant given its non-party status to the contract, noting that "the interested party failed to present evidence to the case file justifying the joinder of the applicant as a co-defendant". Additionally, the court ruled that "since bringing claims against an improper defendant constitutes an independent ground for refusing to satisfy the stated claims, the court concludes that this circumstance indicates a contradiction to the public policy of the Russian Federation, and therefore the court decides to grant the application and refuse to recognize the decision of the Magistrates' Court in Tel Aviv".[13] It remains critical to note that deploying the public policy reservation in this context remains highly debatable: under Paragraph 51 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 53, courts should apply it in exceptional cases, without supplanting specific procedural grounds for refusal.

In Select Engagement No. A53-13655/2023 on the recognition and enforcement of a decision by the Tashkent Regional Court, the court found that during the initial hearings, the applicant knew the debtor (defendant) did not supply the goods, and another enterprise – the proper recipient – guaranteed payment for transport services. Crucially, payment under the contract with the debtor remained unfulfilled, whereas the plaintiff falsely claimed otherwise to support its demands.

Evaluating these facts, the court concluded that the circumstances could "indicate signs of unscrupulous business participants using judicial authority to obtain enforcement documents to conduct financial transactions with funds, the actual purposes of which may be carrying out illegal financial activities, creating a lawful appearance for the possession, use, and disposal of funds whose legal acquisition is unconfirmed, as well as an attempt to circumvent the prohibitive measures applied by credit institutions within the framework of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Thus, the mandatory enforcement of the decision of the Tashkent Regional Court contradicts the public policy of the Russian Federation".[14]

Regarding friendly or neutral jurisdictions, the enforcement landscape remains largely unchanged.

In Select Engagement No. A62-5643/2024, a Kazakhstan-based company filed a motion to recognize and enforce a decision by the Specialized Inter-district Economic Court of Almaty. The court resolved the dispute guided by the 1992 Kyiv Agreement. While the court deemed the initial mailed notice during simplified proceedings non-compliant with the applicable international treaty, the debtor successfully applied to set aside that specific decision, leading to a full hearing on the merits.

When reviewing the notification of the party against whom the decision was rendered, the arbitration court investigates whether the party lost the opportunity to mount a defense due to a lack of actual and timely notice of the hearing.[15]

After evaluating the evidentiary record, the court reached a substantiated conclusion that the debtor "possessed information about the judicial proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. <...> The application contains references to the civil procedural law of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which indicates the debtor's awareness of the consequences of filing such an application and resuming the proceedings in general adversarial procedure". Additionally, the court affirmed that "the recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment does not contradict the public policy of the Russian Federation <...>, because the rendering of a decision by a foreign court does not cause damage to the sovereignty or security of the state, does not affect the interests of large social groups, and does not violate the constitutional rights and freedoms of private individuals".[16]

Nevertheless, Russian courts will resolutely refuse to recognize a court judgment from a friendly jurisdiction if procedural violations surface.

For example, in Select Engagement No. A56-120092/2023, the cassation court remanded a motion by a Chinese company seeking to recognize and enforce a settlement agreement approved by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China for Zhejiang Province (name cited per the judicial act). The court remanded the case because "the copies of documents submitted by the applicant are not properly certified and differ in content from what is provided in the translations submitted by the applicant. The fact of errors in the translations of the submitted copies was declared by the applicant itself".[17] The cassation court also flagged that the applicant filed the motion directly with the Russian arbitration court, explicitly bypassing the mandatory communication procedure through central justice institutions dictated by the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated June 19, 1992 (Articles 2, 16 of the Treaty).

The current enforcement landscape illustrates a definitive pivot toward a model heavily prioritizing national security, sanctions countermeasures, and the safeguarding of national economic interests. Courts routinely deploy public policy reservations as a primary tool to deny recognition of decisions from unfriendly jurisdictions, an approach officially codified by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Review No. 8/2026 (Paragraphs 19, 20). Conversely, the treatment of decisions from courts and arbitral tribunals located in friendly or neutral countries remains stable. Russian courts continue to evaluate these decisions using standard procedural grounds outlined in domestic legislation and international conventions, such as improper notification or exclusive jurisdiction conflicts.

Key Takeaways

In light of the evolving landscape, parties preparing for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment or arbitral award in Russia should prioritize the following actionable steps:

• Navigating the applicable treaty framework (the 1992 Kyiv Agreement, the Chisinau or Minsk Convention, a bilateral treaty, or the New York Convention) to verify its validity for the specific pair of states as of the application date;
• Safeguarding the defendant's notification by strictly utilizing the channels provided for by the applicable international treaty, while proactively securing evidence of the party's actual awareness of the proceedings;
• Structuring the set of documents under Article 242 of the APC RF well in advance, ensuring proper certification, legalization, or apostille, alongside flawless translations – recognizing that documentary defects can trigger reversals even in cases from friendly jurisdictions (No. A56-120092/2023);
• Managing critical deadlines: enforcing the three-year window to present the decision (Article 246 of the APC RF) and the one-month window for cassation appeals, while accurately calculating the state fee under Subparagraph 13 of Paragraph 1 of Article 333.21 of the Tax Code;
• Conducting a comprehensive sanctions audit of the dispute, evaluating the parties and beneficiaries, the seat of arbitration, the composition of arbitrators, the settlement mechanics (mandating an account in a Russian bank), and analyzing exposure under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the APC RF and the directives in Review No. 8/2026;
• Counseling clients to proactively prepare evidence disproving the criteria listed in Paragraph 51 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 53 if facing public policy objections, leveraging the extraordinary nature of the reservation and forcing the objecting party to meet its heavy burden of proof.

______________________

References

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 120 of the Chisinau Convention; message from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated May 30, 2023, On the Entry into Force of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters, signed in Chisinau on October 7, 2002. On the termination of the Minsk Convention in relations with Ukraine from May 19, 2024 – according to data from the Russian Ministry of Justice.
2. Articles 51, 53, and 55 of the Minsk Convention as amended by the Protocol dated June 26, 2025; amendments apply from March 25, 2026.
3. Agreement on the Procedure for Resolving Disputes Related to Economic Activities (Kyiv, March 20, 1992). See also Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 96 dated December 22, 2005.
4. Convention status – according to depositary data (Hague Conference on Private International Law).
5. Order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 83-rp dated April 8, 2021, "On the Signing of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters".
6. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on the Procedure for Mutual Enforcement of Judicial Acts of the Arbitration Courts of the Russian Federation and the Economic Courts of the Republic of Belarus (Moscow, January 17, 2001). According to Article 1 of the Agreement, judicial acts of the competent courts of the Parties do not require a special recognition procedure.
7. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus Circuit No. F08-4647/2025 dated September 17, 2025, in case No. A53-23536/2024.
8. Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 156 dated February 26, 2013, Review of the Practice of Consideration by Arbitration Courts of Cases Involving the Application of the Public Policy Reservation as a Ground for Refusing to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Court and Arbitral Awards.
9. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus Circuit No. F08-5290/2025 dated September 8, 2025, in case No. A63-2940/2022.
10. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit No. F05-8539/2025 dated July 29, 2025, in case No. A40-221290/2023.
11. Thematic Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 8/2026 On the Application by Arbitration Courts of the Legislation on Special Economic Measures Provided for to Protect the National Interests of the Russian Federation, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11A/2026 dated June 17, 2026.
12. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus Circuit No. F08-4869/2025 dated October 8, 2025, in case No. A53-354/2025.
13. Ruling of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated February 13, 2024, in case No. A40-107975/2023.
14. Ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Rostov Region dated August 16, 2023, in case No. A53-13655/2023.
15. Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 96 dated December 22, 2005 (Paragraph 6) Review of the Practice of Consideration by Arbitration Courts of Cases on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments, on Challenging Arbitral Tribunal Awards, and on Issuing Writs of Execution for the Mandatory Enforcement of Arbitral Tribunal Awards.
16. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central Circuit No. F10-298/2025 dated April 9, 2025, in case No. A62-5643/2024.
17. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Northwestern Circuit No. F07-19639/2024 dated February 6, 2025, in case No. A56-120092/2023.