Russia / 09 October 2012 / Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) / Rual Trade Limited (BVI) v UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe, Vladimir Romanov, Roman Romanov (Lithuania) & Viva Trade LLC (BVI) (third party) / А40-105056/10-52-930
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) |
| Date | 09 October 2012 |
| Parties | Rual Trade Limited (BVI) v UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe, Vladimir Romanov, Roman Romanov (Lithuania) & Viva Trade LLC (BVI) (third party) |
| 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 | Rual Trade Limited (“Rual Trade”) sought recognition and enforcement before the Moscow Arbitration Court (court of first instance) of an arbitral award rendered on 21 April 2010 by an arbitral tribunal under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) with its seat in Stockholm (Sweden). The award ordered UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe, Vladimir Romanov, and Roman Romanov (the “Debtors”) to jointly and severally pay Rual Trade USD 2 500 000 and accrued interest. The court granted recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award and issued a writ of execution. The ruling was appealed by Mr. Roman Romanov, one of the Debtors, before the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District (court of cassation). By a ruling of the court of cassation, the decision of the court of first instance was quashed and the case was remanded to the court of first instance for re-examination. At the request of the court of cassation, the court of first instance included Viva Trade LLC as a third party and granted Rual Trade recognition and enforcement of the award and issued a writ of execution. The court of first instance concluded that there was no basis either under Russian law or Article V(1) NYC for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award. Roman Romanov re-appealed the decision of the court of first instance before the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District asserting that the decision of the court of first instance had to be quashed as it was rendered in violation of material and procedural norms. The Federal Arbitrazh Court upheld the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court granting recognition and enforcement of the award, concluding that there was no basis either under Russian law or Article V(1) NYC for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award. The court held that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal derived from the arbitration agreement and the Debtors had not challenged the competence of the arbitral tribunal during the course of the proceedings; it also held that the Debtors were duly notified of the time and place of the arbitration hearing. Furthermore, it held that neither NYC nor Russian court practice required the award debtor to be domiciled at the location where enforcement is sought against his assets. The court also rejected the Debtors’ assertion that no evidence was presented to show that the Debtors’ property was located in Russia, noting that the court of first instance, based on the examination of case materials, had concluded that the Debtors had property in Moscow. The court of cassation also rejected the assertion of the Debtors that the award had not entered into force since the Debtors failed to furnish such evidence. The court concluded that the norms of material and procedural law had been correctly applied by the lower court and upheld the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court granting recognition and enforcement of the award and issuing a writ of execution. |
| affirms : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
