In July, the EU approved its 18th package of sanctions. The most debated innovation is the right to deny enforcement of investment arbitration awards and to claim damages arising from them. At the same time, Russian courts are developing new approaches to sanctions-related disputes: frozen assets cannot be recovered until the regulator refuses to issue a license. There are also changes in case law on anti-suit injunctions — they are now granted not just to one firm but to an entire corporate group. According to lawyers, this reflects a trend toward solidarity.
Case
The Arbitrazh Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region refused to recognise a judgment of the Stuttgart Land Court (Landgericht) (Case No. А56-49800/2024). The request came from the German company Viavi Solution Deutschland GmbH, to which the Russian company Vilcom SPB owed more than $160,000. This was already the second round of proceedings: last October, the same court granted the German company’s request. However, the Arbitrazh Court of the North-Western District disagreed with that ruling. The cassation court recalled that there is no treaty between Russia and Germany on the recognition of foreign judgments, and Germany is included in the list of unfriendly states. Recognition is still possible under the principle of reciprocity. Therefore, the court asked the claimant to provide evidence that Russian courts’ decisions in similar cases had been enforced in Germany over the past three years. Viavi Solution failed to do so, and upon reconsideration, the St. Petersburg court refused to recognise and enforce the German judgment.
Comment
Case
The Arbitrazh Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region refused to recognise a judgment of the Stuttgart Land Court (Landgericht) (Case No. А56-49800/2024). The request came from the German company Viavi Solution Deutschland GmbH, to which the Russian company Vilcom SPB owed more than $160,000. This was already the second round of proceedings: last October, the same court granted the German company’s request. However, the Arbitrazh Court of the North-Western District disagreed with that ruling. The cassation court recalled that there is no treaty between Russia and Germany on the recognition of foreign judgments, and Germany is included in the list of unfriendly states. Recognition is still possible under the principle of reciprocity. Therefore, the court asked the claimant to provide evidence that Russian courts’ decisions in similar cases had been enforced in Germany over the past three years. Viavi Solution failed to do so, and upon reconsideration, the St. Petersburg court refused to recognise and enforce the German judgment.
Comment
In this case, the court’s approach fully corresponds to the strict wording of Article 241 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, says Igor Sokolov, Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution practice at SL LEGAL. According to this article, recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment requires either an international treaty or a specific clause in a law. Russian courts rarely recognise foreign judgments based solely on reciprocity or international comity. Another nuance here is that these principles are not enshrined in law, and courts interpret them differently.
In such cases, a foreign counterparty still has the option to enforce the judgment in another jurisdiction or retry the case in Russia. However, this is not suitable for all disputes.
There are numerous examples of foreign creditors chasing the assets of Russian companies abroad. But this strategy makes sense only for large claims, as it requires significant resources and time. For smaller claims, it may be more practical to re-litigate the matter in Russia — provided the limitation period has not expired and the claim itself is strong and well-documented.
Read more in the full article via the link*.
* In Russian
There are numerous examples of foreign creditors chasing the assets of Russian companies abroad. But this strategy makes sense only for large claims, as it requires significant resources and time. For smaller claims, it may be more practical to re-litigate the matter in Russia — provided the limitation period has not expired and the claim itself is strong and well-documented.
Read more in the full article via the link*.
* In Russian
Contacts:
- Igor Sokolov, Senior Associate, Dipsute Resolution, igor.sokolov@sl-legal.ru