Landmark decision on international letters rogatory directed at Russian authorities: what it means for foreign parties

In the course of advising foreign law firms on asset tracing and enforcement matters in Russia, one procedural instrument generates more uncertainty than almost any other: the international letter rogatory. Requests for judicial assistance directed at Russian courts and state authorities have always operated within a layered treaty framework — the 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance, bilateral treaties, and in limited respects the Hague Evidence Convention — but the domestic procedural rules governing how Russian courts receive and act on those requests have remained opaque to foreign practitioners. A decision handed down by a Russian commercial court in early 2026 has begun to change that, clarifying how rogatory requests directed at Russian authorities should be framed, routed, and processed, and — critically — what happens when they are not.

International letters rogatory are formal requests from a foreign court or authority to a Russian counterpart, asking it to perform a specific judicial act: serving process, taking witness evidence, or in commercial and enforcement contexts, compelling disclosure of asset information held by Russian state registries. The legal basis for such requests in Russia derives primarily from treaty obligations — the Minsk Convention for CIS member states, bilateral legal assistance treaties with several European and Asian jurisdictions, and domestic procedural rules that implement those treaty obligations in civil and commercial proceedings.

The matter at issue arose in the context of a cross-border asset recovery effort. A foreign creditor, acting through counsel in its home jurisdiction, sought to obtain information held by a Russian state registry — information directly relevant to identifying and locating assets of a judgment debtor with registered interests in Russia. The foreign court issued a letter rogatory, directed through the central authority channel, requesting that the relevant Russian authority produce specified documentary information.

Two procedural questions presented themselves before the Russian court. First, whether the rogatory request satisfied the formal requirements imposed by Russian domestic procedure for incoming requests — requirements that, in practice, go beyond the treaty text and include specific translation, notarisation, and routing formalities. Second, and more significantly, whether the Russian court retained any substantive discretion to decline execution of a formally compliant request on grounds that the information sought was commercially sensitive or subject to domestic confidentiality protections.

The court's ruling addressed both questions in terms that will be of direct interest to foreign counsel managing cross-border enforcement files.

On the formal requirements question, the court confirmed that Russian procedural rules impose a strict compliance standard: a letter rogatory that does not satisfy each formal requirement — certified translation into Russian, notarised authentication of the issuing court's authority, and routing through the designated central authority rather than direct to the executing court — will not be executed, regardless of the treaty obligation to cooperate. The court declined to apply a curative discretion to overlook formal defects. This position, while broadly consistent with prior administrative practice, is now confirmed at the level of a reasoned judicial decision.

On the more significant question of substantive refusal grounds, the court's reasoning was notably restrictive. It held that a formally compliant rogatory request, directed at a Russian state authority holding information of the type specified in the applicable treaty, could not be refused on grounds of commercial sensitivity or domestic confidentiality rules alone, provided the requesting foreign court had articulated a clear nexus between the information sought and the underlying proceedings. The court distinguished between information held by private parties — where domestic confidentiality protections retain force — and information held by state registries in their public capacity, which it characterised as subject to a narrower refusal regime under the applicable treaty framework.

"This ruling draws a line that foreign counsel have long needed: registry-held asset data is not shielded by commercial confidentiality when a foreign court's rogatory request is formally compliant and treaty-grounded." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners

The practical effect is meaningful. Creditors seeking disclosure of registered asset data — ownership of real property, vehicle registrations, participatory interests in Russian legal entities — through a properly constituted rogatory request now have a clearer basis for challenging a refusal by the executing Russian authority. The decision does not guarantee execution, and appeals to the applicable treaty text remain necessary, but it removes one category of previously common objection from the executing authority's repertoire.

If you are advising a client with enforcement interests in Russia and need confirmed Russian counsel to prepare or support a letters rogatory request — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

For foreign law firms managing cross-border enforcement and asset tracing files, the ruling has three practical consequences worth noting.

First, formal compliance is non-negotiable and must be verified by Russian counsel before the request leaves the foreign jurisdiction. The court's confirmation that formal defects are fatal — not curable — means that a request drafted without input from a Russian-qualified lawyer familiar with current central authority practice will frequently fail at the threshold, wasting procedural time and alerting the debtor. Firms instructing Russian lawyers should ensure that this review occurs at the drafting stage, not after transmission.

Second, the distinction the court draws between state registry data and privately held information has direct implications for how asset tracing strategies in Russia are sequenced. Rogatory requests are a more viable instrument for obtaining registry-held information than they are for obtaining documents held by private counterparties, banks, or advisers. Foreign counsel should calibrate their expectations accordingly and explore parallel routes — including applications under Asset Tracing & Recovery practice mechanisms — where private-party disclosure is needed.

Third, the ruling is likely to be cited in subsequent proceedings, including before the courts of CIS member states whose legal assistance frameworks closely track Russian procedural norms. Practitioners advising on matters that touch Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, or other CIS jurisdictions should note that this reasoning may travel — and should factor it into their treaty analysis. The companion analysis in International Letters Rogatory Directed at Russian Authorities: A Practitioner Overview addresses the broader procedural landscape in detail.

For firms without an established Russian counsel relationship, the window between a foreign judgment or arbitral award and the commencement of enforcement is typically the most consequential period. Rogatory requests directed at Russian registries are one of the tools available during that window — but only if they are prepared correctly from the outset. The guidance published alongside Rospatent's recent clarification on international letters rogatory, available at Rospatent Issues Guidance on International Letters Rogatory, provides further context for IP-adjacent asset tracing situations.

For enforcement matters touching Russian assets more broadly, the cross-border disputes practice and the firm's Matters Hub record provides additional context on the procedural tools available at each stage of the recovery sequence.

To discuss a cross-border enforcement or asset tracing matter involving Russian authorities — speak to our team: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

Q: What does this ruling change for foreign counsel seeking information from Russian state registries?

A: The ruling confirms that Russian courts will not execute a rogatory request that fails to satisfy domestic formal requirements — certified translation, notarised authentication, and correct central authority routing — regardless of the underlying treaty obligation. It also restricts the grounds on which a Russian executing authority may refuse a formally compliant request directed at state registry data, removing commercial confidentiality as a standalone refusal basis where the foreign court has established a clear nexus between the requested information and the underlying proceedings. In practice, this makes properly prepared rogatory requests a more viable instrument for identifying Russian-registered assets than they were under prior administrative practice.

Q: What should foreign law firms do in light of this decision?

A: Firms should ensure that any letters rogatory directed at Russian authorities are reviewed and, where appropriate, drafted with input from Russian-qualified counsel before transmission. The formal requirements are strict and fatal if not met. Beyond formal compliance, firms should also review whether the information they are seeking is registry-held — in which case this ruling supports execution — or privately held, in which case a different procedural strategy may be needed. Firms without an established Russian counsel relationship should treat this as the moment to put one in place, particularly where enforcement proceedings are live or anticipated.

• International Letters Rogatory Directed at Russian Authorities: A Practitioner Overview
• Rospatent Issues Guidance on International Letters Rogatory
• Asset Tracing & Recovery Practice

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's asset tracing and recovery practice advises foreign creditors, foreign law firms, and institutional investors on the full sequence of enforcement steps available in Russia: from pre-judgment asset searches and interim measures through to execution against identified assets. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge with direct partner involvement on every engagement.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/