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

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.

This approach ensures legal certainty and reduces the risk of procedural abuse within the CIS framework.

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.

Similar projects

Advising an international industrial group of companies in the resolution of cross-border disputes exceeding EUR 3 million

Case: support in cross-border commercial disputes in the field of industrial equipment supply.
REVERA’s lawyers advised the Russian subsidiary of an international industrial group whose parent company is headquartered in Sweden in connection with complex cross-border commercial disputes.

Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Court Judgment for a Leading Uzbek Bank

REVERA successfully secured the recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment in Belarus. The client’s rights were effectively protected, and cross-border risks were minimised.

International Construction Arbitration: Protecting the Client’s Interests in an Amount Exceeding EUR 30 Million

REVERA provided comprehensive legal support to a major company implementing turnkey projects in the mining and metallurgical as well as mining industries in the CIS and beyond, within the framework of a dispute before the International Arbitration Court at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IAC at the BCCI) against a major customer, a resident of Uzbekistan.

A project with an implementation value exceeding EUR 300 million became the subject of a dispute in an amount exceeding EUR 30 million. The case was considered under Uzbek law, while the seat of arbitration was Minsk, which immediately created a number of cross-border and conflict-of-laws challenges.