Russia / 28 July 2011 / Russia, Арбитражный суд города Москвы (Moscow Arbitrazh Court) / Rual Trade Limited (BVI) v UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe, Vladimir Romanov, Roman Romanov (Lithuania) / А40-105056/10-52-930
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Арбитражный суд города Москвы (Moscow Arbitrazh Court) |
| Date | 28 July 2011 |
| Parties | Rual Trade Limited (BVI) v UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe, Vladimir Romanov, Roman Romanov (Lithuania) |
| Case number | А40-105056/10-52-930 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 21 April 2010, an arbitral tribunal under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) with its seat in Stockholm (Sweden) rendered an award in favour of Rual Trade Limited (“Rual Trade”) against UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe, Vladimir Romanov, and Roman Romanov (the “Debtors”). Rual Trade sought recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Russia, the location of the Debtors’ assets, before the Moscow Arbitration Court (court of first instance). The Debtors opposed recognition and enforcement of the award on the grounds that (i) the award could not be enforced on the territory of the Russian Federation since the place of residence and the location of the Debtors was known to be in another country and (ii) the award had not become final due to appeal proceedings commenced before the Swedish court. The Moscow Arbitration Court granted Rual Trade recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. By relying on Russian law and Article V(1) NYC, the court held that the burden of proving the existence of any of the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement rests with the party against whom the award was rendered and concluded that there was no basis for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award. Firstly, the court observed that the Debtors participated in the arbitration proceedings and had not objected to the lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal due to the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the court rejected the Debtors’ assertion that the award could not be enforced on the territory of the Russian Federation since the place of residence and the location of the debtors was known to be in the Republic of Lithuania. The court held that neither NYC nor Russian court practice requires the award debtor to be domiciled at the location where enforcement is sought against his assets. It also rejected the Debtors’ assertion that the award had not become final and binding. The court relied on a legal opinion by White & Case submitted by Rual Trade stating that, under Swedish law, an arbitral award remains valid until it has been set aside by a final court judgment. The court concluded that the challenge to the award did not affect its binding nature and that the award could be enforced even if setting aside procedures had been commenced before Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm. In relation to the invalidity and setting aside of the arbitral award, the court also observed that the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm could decide that the award could not be enforced, thus suspending its enforcement, until it had rendered a further decision on the matter, or decide that enforcement could not continue or should be reversed. However, no such application for stay of enforcement of the award had been made before the Swedish court thus far and therefore no such order on suspension has been issued. On this basis, the court granted recognition and enforcement of the award and issued a writ of execution. |
| affirmed by : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
