Development of the practice of recognition and enforcement of decisions of Russian state courts

The practice of recognizing and enforcing Russian court decisions abroad has undergone significant changes in recent years. While international legal assistance treaties previously served as the key reference point, their importance is gradually declining. The actual judicial practice of a given country, as well as its willingness to apply the principle of reciprocity in the face of sanctions pressure, are becoming more important.

In these circumstances, Russian businesses are adapting their approach to cross-border disputes. The geography of potential jurisdictions is shifting toward states that maintain a neutral stance and demonstrate flexibility in law enforcement. This primarily applies to countries in the Middle East and Asia, where courts more often evaluate the legal validity of claims and compliance with procedural safeguards rather than the political context.

One indicative trend is the development of reciprocity. In a number of jurisdictions, it is no longer an abstract principle and is being given concrete substance through court decisions. For example, in some countries, cases are already emerging of Russian acts being recognized in the absence of a direct international agreement. This means that courts are willing to consider the actual conduct of the other party—in particular, the existence of examples of recognition of their decisions in Russia.

At the same time, approaches to reciprocity remain uneven. In some legal systems, proof of the potential for recognition is sufficient, while in others, specific court decisions or even official clarifications from government agencies are required. This variability complicates forecasting, but simultaneously opens up room for legal argumentation.

At the same time, the practical value of international treaties is declining. Despite their formal validity, courts in a number of countries, primarily European ones, are prioritizing supranational regulation. This primarily concerns sanctions regimes, which effectively block the enforcement of decisions if a relevant element is present in a case. As a result, even a valid treaty does not guarantee a positive outcome.

In contrast, countries with more flexible legal systems retain the ability to assess a dispute holistically. The court may consider the economic nature of the obligation, the good faith of the parties, and the consequences of refusing recognition. However, even in these jurisdictions, there is no stable and predictable practice—each case is considered individually.

In practice, several sustainable approaches to choosing a jurisdiction and building a strategy are emerging:

• priority is given to countries where there are already positive examples of recognition;
• not only the existence of an agreement is taken into account, but also actual judicial practice;
• the attitude of the courts towards the sanctions element is analyzed;
• The availability of security measures and asset protection mechanisms is assessed.

The development of enforcement instruments deserves special attention. In some cases, foreign courts are willing to issue interim measures, for example, imposing restrictions on the disposal of assets – even before the completion of recognition proceedings. This helps to establish the debtor’s financial position and increases the likelihood of subsequent enforcement. However, such measures do not replace the recognition procedure itself and require independent justification.

Despite the transformation of approaches, the basic criteria by which foreign courts assess the possibility of recognizing a decision remain unchanged. Their importance is even heightened, since under sanctions, formal violations are most often the basis for refusal.

Key conditions include:

• proper notice to the defendant of the proceedings;
• compliance with procedural rules during the consideration of the case;
• absence of contradiction with the public order of the country of execution;
• the jurisdiction of the court that made the decision.

The notification procedure is particularly important. Foreign courts typically examine not only the fact of notification but also its quality:

• method of delivery,
• timeframe,
• defendant’s ability to prepare a defense.

A formal approach or shortened deadlines may be considered a violation of the right to defense and lead to denial of recognition.

The sanctions factor also has a significant impact. In today’s environment, it is viewed not as an additional circumstance, but as a key element of legal assessment. The presence of a sanctions component can affect the classification of a dispute, the applicable law, and the final decision of a foreign court. Therefore, when developing a strategy, it is important to minimize such elements whenever possible or correctly justify their legal nature.

Taking this into account, practical recommendations are being developed to increase the likelihood of enforcement of decisions abroad:

• determine in advance the jurisdictions in which the debtor’s assets are concentrated;
• analyze the judicial practice of a particular country, and not just the legislation;
• comply with international notification procedures without simplifications;
• take into account the requirements of public order and restrictions;
• to reduce, if possible, the influence of the sanctions component in the dispute.

Additionally, differences in procedural models must be taken into account. Some countries use a simplified recognition procedure, while others require separate legal proceedings. In such cases, a Russian court decision is considered proof of the existence of an obligation, rather than an act subject to automatic enforcement.

Overall, current practice shows that the mechanism for recognizing and enforcing Russian court decisions abroad is becoming more complex and fragmented. One-size-fits-all solutions are losing their effectiveness, and success increasingly depends on the careful selection of jurisdiction and the quality of legal preparation.

However, it’s not possible to talk about a complete blocking of such opportunities. On the contrary, a new map of jurisdictions is being formed where enforcement remains feasible. In these circumstances, the ability to consider not only formal norms but also actual law enforcement practices plays a key role, as in the current situation, the latter is becoming a determining factor.