In the past two years of advising on Russian asset recovery mandates alongside foreign counsel, one structural tension recurs with increasing frequency: the difficulty of sequencing Russian enforcement steps against a backdrop of live European proceedings targeting the same assets or the same obligor. Recent judicial practice suggests that Russian courts are beginning to articulate clearer — if still evolving — positions on how they treat the existence of parallel foreign proceedings, what weight they assign to foreign interim measures, and under what conditions they will coordinate rather than compete with enforcement steps taken abroad. For foreign law firms instructing local counsel Russia on cross-border asset recovery matters, understanding those emerging positions is now a practical necessity rather than an academic interest.
What did the proceedings involve?
The matters that have contributed most visibly to this emerging body of Russian judicial practice share a common fact pattern: a claimant — typically a foreign trade creditor or institutional investor — holds a judgment or award obtained in a European jurisdiction and seeks to trace and recover assets held by the respondent within Russia, while simultaneously maintaining parallel enforcement or freezing proceedings in one or more European courts.
The Russian-side proceedings in these matters have generally involved one of two procedural routes: either a direct application to an arbitrazh court for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award under the standard cross-border asset recovery framework, or an independent claim on the underlying obligation before Russian courts, pursued where the foreign award is not straightforwardly recognisable under an applicable bilateral treaty or under the New York Convention.
What distinguishes the more recent wave of decisions from earlier practice is the courts' engagement with the European proceedings not merely as background fact but as a live procedural variable. In at least several documented instances, the question of whether European freezing orders had been granted — and whether they remained in force — was raised by the court itself during case management hearings, and factored into the court's approach to interim relief applications and, in some instances, to the sequencing of enforcement steps. This is a meaningful development: Russian courts have not historically treated the status of foreign proceedings as relevant to their own procedural decisions on cross-border asset recovery.
If you are coordinating a cross-border asset recovery matter with a Russian component, make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
What did the court decide?
The judicial positions emerging from these matters do not represent a unified doctrine — Russian courts have not articulated a formal framework for coordinating with European proceedings in asset recovery cases, and the published reasoning across decisions varies considerably. That said, several consistent themes are visible.
First, Russian courts have generally been prepared to acknowledge European interim relief in the reasoning for their own interim measures decisions, treating a subsisting European freezing order as a relevant — though not determinative — factor when assessing the risk of asset dissipation. This does not mean the courts consider themselves bound by the European order; they plainly do not. However, the existence of a foreign measure appears to reinforce the factual picture of dissipation risk, which is otherwise a relatively high bar under Russian civil procedure.
Second, in matters where the foreign claimant's counsel had structured the Russian proceedings to run in parallel with, rather than sequentially after, the European enforcement steps, courts showed a greater willingness to engage with the full evidentiary picture — including documentation produced in the foreign jurisdiction. The practical implication is that parallel coordination, handled with care and with consistent factual framing across both jurisdictions, is more likely to produce a coherent result than a sequential strategy in which the Russian proceedings are filed only after the European process has concluded or stalled.
Third — and this is the point that most directly affects how foreign law firms should brief local counsel Russia — the courts' approach to service, standing, and evidentiary standards for offshore asset Russia tracing has remained technical and strict. Procedural defects at the point of filing continue to generate delays that are difficult to recover from, irrespective of the substantive merits of the claim. This is an area where early and detailed coordination between instructing foreign counsel and Russian lawyers remains essential.
"The coordinating question in these matters is no longer purely legal — it is logistical: which step, in which forum, on what timeline, produces the best aggregate outcome for the claimant." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners
What does this mean for foreign counsel instructing Russian lawyers?
For partners at foreign firms with clients in active cross-border asset recovery situations involving Russian assets, three practical points follow from this developing judicial practice.
First, the case for early instruction of local counsel has strengthened. The decisions described above reward early procedural preparation — specifically, the identification of Russian-held assets and the drafting of interim relief applications before the European proceedings reach a stage where the factual record has been set in a form that Russian courts may find difficult to use. Instructing Russian lawyers foreign firm partners would engage only after European proceedings are well advanced is a pattern that the recent decisions suggest carries real procedural cost.
Second, consistent factual framing across jurisdictions is now a material strategic consideration, not just a presentational nicety. Russian courts in cross-border asset recovery cases are increasingly willing to look at documentation from foreign proceedings. Where the characterisation of assets, entities, or transactions differs between the Russian filing and the European court record, that inconsistency is likely to be noticed — and it creates unnecessary vulnerability at the hearing stage.
Third, the absence of a bilateral recognition treaty between Russia and most European states means that foreign claimants cannot assume that a European judgment or order will be recognised on its own terms. The Russian proceedings require their own factual and legal foundation. The practical implication is that cross-border asset recovery work involving Russia functions best when treated as a two-track matter from the outset — not as a Russian appendix to a European lead.
For foreign law firms assessing whether and how to coordinate Russia-side enforcement steps, the firm's asset tracing and recovery practice is experienced in providing the kind of structured local counsel support that allows the two tracks to run consistently. Our practice overview at Asset Tracing & Recovery sets out the procedural scope in more detail.
To discuss coordination of Russian and European proceedings — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
Related reading
Frequently asked questions
Q: What does this ruling change for foreign creditors pursuing asset recovery in Russia?
A: The decisions described here do not change the statutory framework for cross-border asset recovery in Russia, but they do signal a shift in how Russian courts are engaging with the fact of parallel European proceedings. Courts are treating the existence of foreign interim relief — freezing orders in particular — as a relevant factor in their own interim measures reasoning. For foreign creditors, this means the status of European proceedings should be clearly documented in the Russian filing materials from the outset. Creditors who rely on a European order having already been granted may find it reinforces their interim relief application in Russia, provided the procedural requirements of the Russian filing are met independently.
Q: What should foreign companies do in light of this decision?
A: Foreign companies — or more precisely, their legal advisers — should treat cross-border asset recovery matters involving Russia as two-track from the point of instruction. The practical steps are: first, instruct local Russian counsel before the European proceedings have produced a settled factual record that may not translate cleanly into Russian procedural requirements; second, ensure that asset characterisations and entity descriptions are consistent across the European and Russian filings; and third, do not assume that a European judgment or freezing order will be recognised or enforced in Russia on its own terms. Each track requires its own independent procedural foundation. Firms seeking a local counsel relationship for Russian-side enforcement work may make an enquiry at info@vetrovpartners.com.
About Vetrov & Partners
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 and their international legal counsel on Russia-side enforcement steps in cross-border asset recovery matters, including interim measures applications, parallel proceedings coordination, and offshore asset Russia tracing. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team provides direct partner involvement on every engagement, working alongside instructing foreign counsel throughout the life of the matter.
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/