Conflict with Public Policy: Is It a Ground for Refusing Recognition of a Judgment under the Kyiv Agreement?

23.03.2026

In cross-border disputes between residents of CIS member states, parties often attempt to challenge the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments by arguing that such judgments are contrary to the public policy of the state of enforcement. As a rule, such arguments are based on provisions of domestic law.

However, as a general rule, this approach is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1992 Kyiv Agreement, which establishes an autonomous and exhaustive list of grounds for refusing recognition of judicial acts.

In this article, REVERA’s lawyers examine, by reference to a specific court case, the following issue: is it possible to refuse recognition of a court judgment rendered by a court of a CIS member state on the ground that it is contrary to the public policy of the state of enforcement?

Legal Framework

The Agreement on the Procedure for Settling Disputes Related to the Conduct of Economic Activity dated 20 March 1992 (the “Agreement”, the “Kyiv Agreement”) sets out a closed and exhaustive list of grounds on which recognition and enforcement of a court judgment may be refused.

These grounds are exclusively procedural in nature and are aimed at protecting the integrity of the judicial proceedings. The Agreement provides for the following grounds for refusal:

• the existence of an earlier judgment that has entered into legal force in respect of the same dispute;
• the case having been heard by a court lacking jurisdiction;
• the absence of proper notice to a party;
• the expiry of the prescribed time limit for presenting the judgment for enforcement.

Conflict with Domestic Legislation

The domestic legislation of many states that are parties to the Kyiv Agreement allows for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment on other grounds, including on the basis that it is contrary to public policy:

Position of the CIS Economic Court

In view of the divergence between the lists of grounds at the domestic and international levels, the CIS Economic Court issued Advisory Opinion No. 01-1/3-10 dated 20 June 2011.

The Court’s principal conclusions were as follows:

1. Special regime: The instrument establishes a procedure for the enforcement of judgments that is as close as possible to the regime applicable to the enforcement of domestic judgments, which distinguishes it from the regime governing relations with third countries.
2. Primacy of the Agreement: The application of Article 9 of the Agreement does not depend on the provisions of domestic legislation.
3. Exhaustive list: The grounds for refusal are strictly limited to those set out in Article 9 of the Agreement. Refusal on any other grounds, including inconsistency with public policy, is impermissible unless and until the Agreement itself is amended accordingly.

Case Law: A Practical Example

Facts of the case:

A resident of the Republic of Belarus obtained a judgment from a Belarusian court for the recovery of monies from a resident of the Russian Federation. Under the Agreement of 17 January 2001, judgments of the courts of Belarus and Russia do not require any special recognition procedure and are enforceable in the same manner as domestic judgments.

The interested party (a resident of the Russian Federation) applied to the competent Russian court with objections to recognition of the judgment, relying on inconsistency with public policy (Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Article 244 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The argument was based on the contention that the Belarusian court had failed to apply the relevant Russian rules on a moratorium on the accrual of penalties.

Consideration of the dispute:

• Court of first instance: Granted the application, accepting the argument that the judgment was contrary to the public policy of the Russian Federation.
• Court of appeal: Set aside the ruling, holding that an expansive interpretation of Article 9 of the Kyiv Agreement was impermissible. The court emphasised that reliance on public policy was not an independent ground for refusal within the framework of that international treaty.
• Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: Refused to refer the cassation appeal to the Judicial Panel for consideration, thereby confirming the stability of the appellate court’s position.

Summary

The analysis of the case law confirms a consistent approach: judgments of state courts of countries party to the Kyiv Agreement are subject to recognition and enforcement without any review for compliance with the public policy of the state of enforcement. Attempts to invoke that concept in practice amount to an impermissible review of the foreign judgment on its merits.

Note of caution: If you are faced with the need to enforce a foreign judgment or are defending against such enforcement, bear in mind that the list of grounds for refusal under the 1992 Kyiv Agreement is closed. In this context, reliance on “public policy”, as a rule, is not an effective defence tool.

 

Author: Aliaksei Fedarovich.

REVERA’s lawyers are ready to provide legal support in resolving court disputes within the CIS.

Would you like to obtain advice on cross-border debt recovery? Write to us, and we will help assess the prospects of your case.