- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- UKRAINE 14
UKRAINE 14
Supreme Court of Ukraine, Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation, 25 November 2024, Case No. 824/41/24
(Lionel Air S.A.C. v. State Company for Export and Import of Military and ... Read more
Supreme Court of Ukraine, Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation, 25 November 2024, Case No. 824/41/24
(Lionel Air S.A.C. v. State Company for Export and Import of Military and Special Purpose Products and Services ‘Ukrspetsexport’)
UKRAINE 14
The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal the first instance decision granting exequatur of an international Ukrainian award, rejecting the respondent’s public policy objections. The respondent argued that it was a strategically important state-owned enterprise, and that enforcement of the award might affect its supply of materials to the Ukrainian army to be used in combat against Russia. The Court found that the debtor was a legal entity, separate from the Ukrainian State, conducting commercial activities, and that the contract underlying the award concerned purely commercial relations, which were not related to strategic interests and defence capabilities. Also, there was no obstacle to granting exequatur of the award because martial law prohibited enforcement actions against strategic state-owned enterprises during wartime, as actual enforcement was accordingly suspended until the end of the war.
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 the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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.