If an international treaty to which Russia is a party establishes rules concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions that differ from those set forth in domestic law, the provisions of the international treaty shall prevail.
Mikhail Samoylov, July 28, 2025
In Case No. A56-6573/2025, the applicant sought to prevent the enforcement of a Belarusian court decision in Russia.
The lower court, referring to Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code (which sets out the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions), granted the application by its decision dated April 4, 2025. The court found that the Belarusian court's decision would breach the public policy of Russia.
By its decision dated July 17, 2025, the Court of Cassation overturned the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the application. The cassation court provides the following reasons:
The lower court, referring to Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code (which sets out the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions), granted the application by its decision dated April 4, 2025. The court found that the Belarusian court's decision would breach the public policy of Russia.
By its decision dated July 17, 2025, the Court of Cassation overturned the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the application. The cassation court provides the following reasons:
If a foreign court decision originates from a country that is a party to the Commonwealth of Independent States Agreement dated March 20, 1992 concerning the resolution of disputes arising from business activities (in this case, a Belarusian court decision), then a Russian court must be guided by Article 9 of the Agreement, which sets out the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision. In such cases, Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code should not be applied, as it establishes the public policy defence (a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement), whereas Article 9 of the Agreement does not provide for this defence.
The cassation court approach is an important one:
First, Article 9 of the Agreement provides narrower grounds for refusing recognition of a court decision than Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code. For example, a violation of public policy—a commonly invoked defence against recognition and enforcement—is not a ground for refusal under Article 9 of the Agreement.
Second, as of today, the Agreement is in force in the following States: the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Republic of Uzbekistan. Accordingly, court decisions originating from these countries may benefit from the favorable provision contemplated in Article 9 of the Agreement.
Whether the approach in Case No. A56-6573/2025 is spreading to other courts remains to be seen.
First, Article 9 of the Agreement provides narrower grounds for refusing recognition of a court decision than Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code. For example, a violation of public policy—a commonly invoked defence against recognition and enforcement—is not a ground for refusal under Article 9 of the Agreement.
Second, as of today, the Agreement is in force in the following States: the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Republic of Uzbekistan. Accordingly, court decisions originating from these countries may benefit from the favorable provision contemplated in Article 9 of the Agreement.
Whether the approach in Case No. A56-6573/2025 is spreading to other courts remains to be seen.
(с) Mikhail Samoylov. 2025.
