โ ๐ก๐ผ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ป๐ธ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐? ๐ก๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ๐บ: ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐ฒ๐ป๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ.
In Case No. ะ43-27728/2024, a saga concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in a Russian-seated arbitration, a ๐จ๐ญ Swiss-based company sought enforcement of the award rendered in its favor. The case was considered by the courts multiple times, and on September 11, 2025, the cassation court rendered its decision in favor of the Swiss-based company, concluding as follows:
๐ข The absence of a bank account in Russia is not a barrier to the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in favor of a foreign company, even if the company is domiciled in an โunfriendlyโ jurisdiction.
๐ข The fact that a company is domiciled in Switzerland does not, by itself, demonstrate that enforcement of the arbitral award would violate the fundamental principles of the economic, political, or legal system of the Russian Federation.
๐ข If a commercial transaction does not fall under the scope of the Russian presidential decrees on counter-sanctions measures, these decrees are not applicable and cannot serve as legal grounds to oppose enforcement.
ProArbitration.Ru
Post #121
109
- โค 2