Stichting Administratiekantoor NEMS v. I.B. Gitlin

At a glance

Parties

Stichting Administratiekantoor NEMS (applicant creditor) v. Igor Borisovich Gitlin (debtor)

Case no.

Moscow Arbitrazh Court Case No. А40-68312/18-179-85 Ф

Court

Арбитражный суд города Москвы (Moscow Arbitrazh Court), Judge P.N. Korshunov

Forum and rules

Russian insolvency proceedings under Federal Law No. 127-FZ "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" and the Arbitrazh Procedure Code; New York Convention 1958, Article III cited

Treaty

1994 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the Russian Federation and the European Communities and their Member States (Article 98)

Underlying award(s)

Judgment of the Amsterdam District Court of 28 June 2017, case No. C/13/597633/HA ZA 15-1051

Outcome

The bankruptcy petition was left without movement (suspended) because no court act in legal force established the debt; the applicant had to cure the defect within the set time limit.

The dispute

Stichting Administratiekantoor NEMS, a Dutch foundation, filed a petition with the Moscow Arbitrazh Court to declare Igor Borisovich Gitlin, an individual, insolvent (bankrupt). Bankruptcy proceedings against Gitlin were already open on the petition of V.I. Osmak, so NEMS's petition was treated as an application to join the case. NEMS based its claim on a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court of 28 June 2017 (case No. C/13/597633/HA ZA 15-1051). The court looked at whether that Dutch decision could support a creditor's bankruptcy petition in Russia. It cited the rules on recognising foreign decisions, the 1994 EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the New York Convention and the 1961 European Convention.

Key holdings

1. A creditor may file a bankruptcy petition against an individual only on the basis of a court decision in legal force that confirms the monetary claim. The claims must total at least 500,000 roubles and must have gone unpaid for three months (Articles 33(2), 213.3(2) and 213.5(1) of the Insolvency Law). p. 2
2. Under Article 241(1) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, foreign judgments and foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Russia where an international treaty and federal law provide for it. The court held that the 1994 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (Article 98) applies, and that Russia and the Netherlands are parties to the 1958 New York Convention (Article III) and the 1961 European Convention. p. 2
3. The petition and the case file contained no court act in legal force establishing that Gitlin owed a debt to NEMS. The petition was therefore left without movement under Article 44 of the Insolvency Law. p. 3
4. The ruling gives two deadlines for curing the defect: 9 July 2018 in the reasoning and 20 August 2018 in the operative part. If the defect is not cured in time, the petition and its attachments are to be returned. p. 3

Procedural history

1. 28 June 2017Amsterdam District Court gives judgment in case No. C/13/597633/HA ZA 15-1051, on which NEMS later relies.
2. 9 April 2018Moscow Arbitrazh Court accepts V.I. Osmak's bankruptcy petition against Gitlin and opens case No. А40-68312/18-179-85.
3. 6 July 2018NEMS files its bankruptcy petition electronically through the "Moi Arbitr" system.
4. 17 July 2018The court leaves NEMS's petition without movement because no court act in legal force establishes the debt. The published document does not show what happened next.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• P.N. Korshunov Judge, Moscow Arbitrazh Court

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention Article III
• recognition of foreign judgment
• insolvency
• personal bankruptcy
• Russia
• Netherlands
• Amsterdam District Court
• EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
• European Convention 1961
• Article 241 Arbitrazh Procedure Code
• Federal Law 127-FZ
• application left without movement
• NEMS
• Gitlin

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