๐ท๐บ ๐จ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ด๐ป๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ
In Case No. A56-120092/2023, the cassation court confirmed that an application for the recognition and enforcement of a court decision issued by a Chinese court in Russia must be submitted in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty Between the Peopleโs Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated June 19, 1992, rather than under Russian procedural law.
In the case at hand, a Chinese company sought recognition and enforcement in Russia of a Chinese court decision rendered against a Russian company.
The Russian Federation and the Peopleโs Republic of China are parties to the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters (signed in Beijing on June 19, 1992), which, among other things, governs the recognition and enforcement of court decisions and entered into force on November 14, 1993.
According to Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. That court is then responsible for transmitting the decision to a court in the other Contracting Partyโs country.
The Chinese company disregarded Article 17 of the Treaty and filed its application for recognition and enforcement directly with a Russian court, relying on Russian procedural law instead.
The court of first instance discontinued the proceedings, and the cassation court, in its decision dated July 31, 2025, upheld the lower courtโs approach, reiterating that under Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. #China
ProArbitration.Ru
Post #104
245
- ๐ 2