The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
Arbitrazh Court, Moscow Circuit, 24 August 2022, Case No. А40-281802/21
(Forseti Advisors Corp. v. Korporacia Russkaya Film Gruppa)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Arbitrazh Court, Moscow Circuit, 8 February 2022, Case No. A40-235180/2020
(East-West United Bank S.A. v. Kinorpoizvodstvenniy centre LLC)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court, acting as cassation court, upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had denied enforcement of a Cypriot award. The Court noted that public policy is one of the grounds for refusal of enforcement exhaustively listed in the New York Convention, and explained that it should be understood to refer to the fundamental legal principles that are the basis of the economic, political and legal system of the Russian Federation. On the facts of the case, the Court agreed with the court below that enforcement of the award would violate mandatory rules of the Russian Federation and negatively affect public interest, specifically, would lead to a shortfall in taxes. The contract on which the award was based, the Court found, was concluded between affiliated entities, did not meet the interests of the respondent and had no economic feasibility for it. Hence, it was a sham transaction aimed at withdrawing funds from the Russian company to the account of a foreign company without an equivalent consideration.
Arbitrazh Court of the Volgo-Vyatsky Circuit, 27 December 2021, Case No. А79-9284/2020
(Rossintham Properties Limited v. JSC ABS ZEiM Avtomatizatsia)
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Cassation Court affirmed the first instance and the appellate decisions enforcing an award of the Court of Arbitration of the Association of Latvian Commercial Banks, dismissing the contention that a violation of due process justified refusal of enforcement under the Convention on grounds of public policy. The Court found that the appellants failed to successfully challenge the findings of the lower courts that they had been duly notified of the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Arbitration Rules.
Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, 22 June 2021, Case No. 88-13804/2021
(JSC Rietumu Banka v. Respondents 1 to 6, ADVancement LLC and Austrumu Tirdzniecibas Grupa)
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 21 June 2021, Case No. A40-128695/21
(Double-u-J Holding Limited v. Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
A first instance court granted enforcement of an award rendered under the auspices of the Riga International Commercial Arbitration Court. The beneficial owners of the defendant Calianson sought to file a cassation appeal before the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court against the enforcement decision, on the ground that enforcement would violate their rights and legitimate interests, as it would affect the balance of interest vis-à- the beneficial owner and controlling person of the applicant Lindrex. The Court deemed the appeal inadmissible, finding that the appellants had not participated in the arbitration, and that their interest in the outcome of the case alone did not entitle them to appeal the enforcement decision.
Arbitrazh Court of the Ural Circuit, 25 May 2021, Case No. А60-73262/2019
(Lindrex Company Inc. v. Calianson Management Limited)
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court for the City of Moscow granted enforcement of an LCIA award rendered between two BVI companies in respect of a license agreement, finding that the defendant did not prove any of the grounds for refusal under the New York Convention.
Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 2 April 2021, Case No. A40-9755/20-83-51
(Fashion TV Russia Ltd. v. Future To Victory Ltd.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court denied recognition and enforcement of a CAS award, finding that the alleged arbitration clause in the parties' service agreement was ambiguous and therefore a common intention to arbitrate could not be ascertained. The clause provided that disputes that could not be settled by negotiations would be referred to the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of the City of Moscow, but also that in case of CAS arbitration, the dispute was to be resolved by a sole arbitrator in an arbitration conducted in English. No further conditions for CAS arbitration were specified. The Court also held that recognition and enforcement would violate the public policy of the Russian Federation, because the award granted the claimant’s claim for payment under the service agreement without determining that the service had in fact been supplied.
Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 29 June 2020
(Lucid Sports Group Limited v. AO Dynamo Moscow Football Club)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Federal Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court upheld the holding of the courts below that an arbitration clause referring to the ICC Rules, though not the ICC as an institution, was not incapable of being performed for failing to specify an arbitral institution.
Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow Circuit, 23 June 2020
(Limited Liability Company Zambelli v. Codest Engineering S.r.l.)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
The Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court granted the claimant’s application for a writ of execution for the enforcement of a VIAC award. The Court’s earlier refusal to issue the writ had been in accordance with the instructions of the 2012 Decree of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court “On some procedural issues connected with hearing of insolvency cases”, because an insolvency proceeding had been pending at the time against the defendant. The insolvency proceeding, however, had been subsequently terminated.
Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 27 December 2019
(Emhart Glass SA v. OOO Nakosta)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation No. 50, OAO Alexandrovskiy mashinostroitelnyi zavod v. Esterer WD GmbH , Arbitrazh Court, Ural District, Case No. F09-3074/19, 18 July 2019
Arbitrazh Court, Ural District, 18 July 2019
OAO Alexandrovskiy mashinostroitelnyi zavod v. Esterer WD GmbH
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Russian Federation No. 49, Gemperle Inc. v. LLC Trade House ESTET, Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-296672/2018, 26 June 2019
Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 26 June 2019
Gemperle Inc. v. LLC Trade House ESTET
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 46. Banwell International Limited v. OAO Rosshelf, Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-117331/18, 16 January 2019
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation No. 48. Alchevskiy Metallurgical Plant PJSC v. Russian metallurgical company LLC, Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-63575/2018, 28 August 2018
Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 28 August 2018
Alchevskiy Metallurgical Plant PJSC v. Russian Metallurgical Company LLC
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Russian Federation 45. OOO RIF et al. v. Grain Export LLC, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Judicial Division, Case No. 308-ES17-12100, 28 February 2018
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation No. 47. Dredging and Maritime Management SA (Luxembourg) v. AO Injtransstroy (Russian Federation), Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, Case No. A40-176466/17-83-1232, 8 February 2018
Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 8 February 2018
Dredging and Maritime Management SA v. AO Injtransstroy
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 43. Public Joint Stock Company Tatneft v. Ukraine, Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 4 July 2017, and Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-67511/17-29-659, 29 August 2017
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Russian Federation 44. Redius-T LLC v. GSE Krass LLC, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Judicial Board on Economic Disputes, Case No 307-ES17-640 (A56-13914/2016), 12 July 2017
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Russian Federation 42. Digital Service LLC v. Ekaterinburg - 2000 LLC, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. A60-12039/2016, 30 May 2017
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Russian Federation 40. Core Carbon Group ApS v. Rosgazificazia OJSC, Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-50778/15, 11 December 2015
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 39. Brandford LLC v. SL Graphika LLC, Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Volgo-Vyatsky District, Case No. A31-3491/2014, 17 April 2015
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Russian Federation 41. Agrofirma Razdoliye LLC et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch, Arbitrazh Court, Rostov Region, Case no. A53-17338/2014, 27 November 2014
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Russian Federation 37. Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 21 April 2014 and Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 24 June 2014
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Russian Federation 38. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, 24 April 2014
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Russian Federation 36. Supreme Commercial [Arbitrazh] Court of the Russian Federation, 27 August 2012
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 35. Supreme Commercial [Arbitrazh] Court of the Russian Federation, 12 June 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Russian Federation 33. Arbitrazh Court, Kemerovskaya Region, 20 July 2011
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.
Russian Federation 32. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, 10 March 2011
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 31. Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 13 December 2010
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Russian Federation 30. Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 5 October 2010
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
Russian Federation 34. Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 11 September 2009 and Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 13 September 2010
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 28. Federal Arbitrazh Court, District of Tomsk, 7 July 2010
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 29. Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 22 March 2010
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
Russian Federation 27. Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 1 March 2010
Related court proceedings: The court discusses measures in aid of arbitration (e.g., anti-suit injunction). This topic also includes the issue of the relationship between the Convention and the recognition of a foreign judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement.
Russian Federation 26. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Central District, 7 September 2009, Supreme Arbitrazh Court, 12 November 2009, and Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 2 February 2010
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
Russian Federation 25. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 27 August 2009
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Russian Federation 24. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, 25 July 2007
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.
Russian Federation 22. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, 12 February 2007
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Russian Federation 13. Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 19 September 2006
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 21. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Urals District, 12 October 2005
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 20. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 29 September 2005
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Russian Federation 19. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 22 September 2005
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 18. Federal Arbitrazh Court, North Caucasus District, 18 April 2005
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Russian Federation 17. Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 22 February 2005
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Russian Federation 16. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, 9 December 2004
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 15. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 1 November 2004
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 14. Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 22 June 2004
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Russian Federation 12. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 8 January 2004
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Russian Federation 23. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Central District, 2 September 2003 and Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, 30 March 2004
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.
Russian Federation 11. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 16 December 1999
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Russian Federation 10. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Judicial Collegium, 22 May 1997
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Russian Federation 8. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 21 April 1997
The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Russian Federation 7. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 11 April 1997
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
Russian Federation 9. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 20 March 1997
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
Russian Federation 6. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 24 May 1996
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Russian Federation 5. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 31 October 1995
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Russian Federation 4. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 28 April 1993
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
Russian Federation 3. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 12 October 1992
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Russian Federation 2. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 23 January 1992
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
USSR 1. Moscow City Court, Civil Department, 6 May 1968
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
USSR 1. Moscow City Court, Civil Department, 6 May 1968
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.