In advising foreign law firms on the enforcement of English court orders against Russian-domiciled debtors, one question arises more consistently than any other: does Russian court practice on this question have any settled content, or is each case decided afresh? A recent clarification issued by a Russian arbitrazh court — addressing precisely when and on what basis an English court order may be recognised and enforced in Russia — provides a useful, if sobering, answer for instructing counsel.
The structural obstacle is longstanding. Russia and the United Kingdom are not parties to any bilateral treaty providing for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. In the absence of such a treaty, Russian arbitrazh courts have had to construct a doctrinal basis for recognition from their own procedural code, which permits recognition of foreign court decisions either on the basis of an international treaty or — where no treaty exists — on the principle of reciprocity.
Reciprocity, in this context, means that a Russian court will consider whether the courts of the foreign state in question would reciprocally enforce a Russian judgment in comparable circumstances. The difficulty with English court orders specifically is that this analysis has not produced a consistent answer across Russian judicial circuits. Some courts have found that sufficient reciprocity exists; others have concluded that, given the practical rarity of Russian judgments being enforced in England, the reciprocity condition is not met.
The matter before the court concerned a foreign creditor — instructed by a firm outside Russia — seeking to recover against a Russian commercial counterparty on the basis of a money judgment issued by an English court. The creditor had been unable to identify sufficient Russian-domiciled assets against which to enforce domestically in England and had turned to Russian proceedings as the primary recovery route. The court's analysis of whether the English judgment should be recognised, and on what conditions, is the subject of this comment.
The court declined to recognise the English court order on the primary grounds that neither a treaty basis nor a demonstrable basis of reciprocity had been established. In reaching that conclusion, the court applied a two-stage analysis. First, it examined whether any relevant international treaty — including the CIS conventions on legal assistance — applied. It found that they did not: those instruments cover CIS member-state judgments, and English judgments fall outside their scope. Second, it turned to the reciprocity question and concluded that the creditor had not discharged the burden of demonstrating that English courts would, in practice, recognise an equivalent Russian commercial judgment.
The court also addressed the public policy reservation. Even if reciprocity had been established, it noted, enforcement of a judgment obtained in proceedings where the defendant had had no proper opportunity to present its case before the English court would likely engage the public policy exception — a ground for refusal that Russian arbitrazh courts apply with some frequency in proceedings involving foreign judgments and foreign parties.
A notable element of the reasoning concerned the burden of proof on reciprocity. The court held that this burden rests with the party seeking recognition, not with the respondent. This is consistent with the prevailing approach in the Siberian and Ural circuits, though practice elsewhere has at times placed a lighter evidential requirement on the claimant.
"The ruling is a useful restatement of a structural problem: English court orders against Russian debtors require a theory of enforcement that does not depend on reciprocity alone, and foreign counsel need to build that theory from the outset." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners
A second ground of refusal addressed jurisdiction: the court found that even if recognition had been available in principle, the English court's assertion of jurisdiction over the Russian defendant did not satisfy the conditions that Russian arbitrazh procedure requires before a foreign court's jurisdiction is treated as proper. This is an aspect of the case that deserves particular attention — it suggests that jurisdiction challenges may be available as an independent line of defence in proceedings to resist recognition, even where the substantive merits of the foreign judgment are not in dispute.
If you are instructing Russian lawyers on behalf of a client with an English court order against a Russian-domiciled defendant — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
For foreign law firms advising creditors who hold English court orders and are considering Russian enforcement proceedings, this decision reinforces several practical points that should inform how instructions are structured from the outset.
The first and most significant point concerns the selection of enforcement route. Where a creditor has an arbitral award — from LCIA, ICC, or another institutional seat — rather than a court judgment, the enforcement route through the New York Convention framework is materially stronger in Russia than the treaty-less position applicable to English court judgments. Where the client's order is a court judgment and not an arbitral award, the strategy requires a different approach: rather than seeking direct recognition of the foreign judgment, counsel should consider whether the underlying debt can be re-litigated before a Russian arbitrazh court on its merits. This is a longer and more resource-intensive route, but it is frequently the only reliable one.
The second point concerns asset position. The legislative and procedural landscape for tracing assets in Russia has developed considerably, and foreign creditors who engage Russian counsel before commencing recognition proceedings — rather than after — are better placed to identify and protect assets before a debtor has notice of enforcement intent. The decision under review is a reminder that recognition proceedings themselves may be protracted; a creditor whose debtor has dissipated Russian assets during the recognition phase may find that a successful recognition argument is ultimately without practical value.
The third point is for instructing firms specifically: the reciprocity burden rests with the applicant, and satisfying it requires evidence about English court practice on Russian judgments. This is not a matter of Russian law alone — it requires co-ordinated input from English solicitors who can speak to what English courts have in practice done with Russian commercial judgments. Firms considering instructing Russian counsel on this type of matter should plan for that evidentiary co-ordination from the outset. The practice briefing on enforcing English court orders in Russia sets out the standard documentation framework we work within.
For foreign creditors who are simultaneously exploring asset identification, the firm's asset tracing and recovery practice can support the Russian-side enquiry in parallel with recognition proceedings, including through the Russian court's interim relief procedures.
To discuss instructing us as Russian counsel on enforcement strategy — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
Q: What does this ruling change?
A: The ruling does not introduce a new legal rule — the absence of a UK–Russia bilateral enforcement treaty has been the structural position for some time. What it clarifies is the burden and method of the reciprocity analysis that Russian arbitrazh courts apply in lieu of a treaty basis. Specifically, the decision confirms that the burden of demonstrating reciprocity rests with the applicant seeking recognition, not with the party resisting it. It also articulates the jurisdiction-challenge ground as an independent basis on which recognition may be refused, distinct from the reciprocity and public policy grounds. For instructing firms, the practical change is that the evidential preparation required before commencing recognition proceedings has become more defined — and more demanding.
Q: What should foreign companies do in light of this decision?
A: Foreign creditors holding English court orders against Russian-domiciled debtors should treat direct recognition proceedings as one option in a broader enforcement strategy, not as the primary route. The immediate steps are: first, establish the Russian asset position before the debtor has notice of intended enforcement; second, assess whether an arbitral route is available — either because the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause or because a parallel arbitral claim can be structured; and third, engage Russian counsel and English solicitors jointly to build the reciprocity evidence before proceedings are filed. Where re-litigation on the merits before a Russian arbitrazh court is the chosen route, that process should begin as soon as the asset position is confirmed.
Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009, recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years and 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 identification and enforcement of claims against Russian-domiciled debtors. This includes support for recognition proceedings, interim relief applications before Russian arbitrazh courts, and parallel asset-tracing work across the Siberian and Ural federal districts. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team offers direct partner involvement on every engagement — no delegation to junior fee-earners.
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/