Enforcing within Russia a decision adopted by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

During the hearing, the debtor was trying to interfere with the recognition and enforcement of the decision, citing that it had not been properly notified of the arbitration proceedings and alleging that the decision contradicted public policy in Russia. Our lawyers in turn proved that the debtor was notified properly and on a timely basis of the appointment of the arbitrators and of the time and place of the arbitration. It also had an opportunity to make its own submissions and to participate in the arbitration proceedings. Moreover, our specialists convinced the courts that the enforcement of the decision would not contradict the public policy of Russia because Russian civil and commercial procedure legislation provides for the possibility to recover an advance payment when a supply agreement is terminated (if the goods have not been supplied), together with interest for late repayment of the advance payment and also court expenses. As a result, the court of the first instance and the cassation court agreed with our position and recognised as ungrounded the arguments of the debtor. 
<br />