Inspection of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties of the Republic of Belarus for Gomel Oblast v. S.S. Petrov

At a glance

Parties

Inspection of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties of the Republic of Belarus for Gomel Oblast (applicant) v. Sergey Sergeevich Petrov (debtor)

Case no.

No. А53-23891/18

Court

Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Oblast (Rostov-on-Don, Russia), Judge I.S. Melenchuk

Underlying award(s)

Judgment of the Economic Court of Gomel Oblast (Belarus) of 5 June 2012, No. 116-13/2012

Treaty

Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance of 22 January 1993 (Article 55); New York Convention 1958 (Article III) also cited

Sector

Tax / state duty collection

Outcome

Application granted (18 September 2018): the Belarusian judgment was recognised and enforced in Russia, and a writ of execution was issued.

Amount

BYR 10,094,763 before denomination (BYR 1,009.48 after denomination) in state duty, payable to the budget of Belarus; RUB 3,000 in court costs (state duty) charged to the debtor

The dispute

On 5 June 2012 the Economic Court of Gomel Oblast in Belarus ordered Sergey Sergeevich Petrov and Oksana Vladimirovna Ushakova, jointly and severally, to pay BYR 10,094,763 in state duty to the Belarusian republican budget (case No. 116-13/2012). The judgment entered into force on 27 June 2012, and a court order was issued the same day. Petrov did not pay voluntarily. The Gomel Oblast tax inspectorate therefore applied to the Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Oblast to have the judgment recognised and enforced in Russia. The debtor did not appear or file a response. Mail sent to his only known address was returned unclaimed, so he was deemed properly notified.

Key holdings

1. The debtor was deemed properly notified under Article 123(4)(3) of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, because mail sent to his only known address was returned after the storage period expired. The case was heard in the absence of both parties under Article 156. p. 1
2. Foreign court judgments and arbitral awards are recognised in Russia only where an international treaty and federal law provide for it (Article 241 of the Code). The grounds for refusal in Article 244 are exhaustive and may not be read broadly. The court also cited Article III of the New York Convention. p. 2
3. Russia and Belarus are both parties to the 1993 Minsk Convention. The court found none of the grounds for refusal under Article 55 of that Convention or Article 244 of the Code. p. 3
4. The Gomel judgment was recognised and enforced. A writ of execution was issued against Petrov for BYR 10,094,763 (BYR 1,009.48 after denomination), payable to the budget of Belarus. Petrov must also pay RUB 3,000 in state duty under Article 110. The ruling may be appealed to the cassation court within one month. p. 3, operative part

Procedural history

1. 5 June 2012The Economic Court of Gomel Oblast orders Petrov and Ushakova, jointly and severally, to pay BYR 10,094,763 in state duty (case No. 116-13/2012).
2. 27 June 2012The Gomel judgment enters into force, and a court order is issued.
3. 18 September 2018The Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Oblast recognises and enforces the judgment and issues a writ of execution.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• I.S. Melenchuk Judge, Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Oblast

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• recognition and enforcement
• foreign court judgment
• Minsk Convention 1993
• New York Convention Article III
• Belarus
• Russia
• state duty
• tax authority
• Gomel
• Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 244
• notice to debtor
• writ of execution
• denomination
• default proceedings

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.