Inspection of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties of the Republic of Belarus for Gomel Oblast v. O.A. Kazannikov

At a glance

Parties

Inspection of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties of the Republic of Belarus for Gomel Oblast (applicant) v. O.A. Kazannikov (interested party, debtor)

Case no.

Moscow Arbitrazh Court Case No. А40-195918/18-141-1559

Court

Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow (Judge A.G. Avagimyan)

Underlying award(s)

Judgment of the Economic Court of Gomel Oblast (Belarus) of 13 October 2016, Case No. 203-8/2016 (also given as No. 2038/2016)

Forum and rules

Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, Chapter 31 (Arts. 241–246); New York Convention 1958

Sector

Tax; subsidiary liability for company debts

Outcome

Application granted: the Belarusian judgment was recognised and declared enforceable in Russia (18 September 2018).

Amount

Underlying judgment: 62.52 rubles in subsidiary liability plus 525 rubles state duty. Russian court ordered 3,000.00 rubles state duty to the Russian federal budget.

The dispute

On 13 October 2016 the Economic Court of Gomel Oblast in Belarus ordered Oleg Aleksandrovich Kazannikov to pay 62.52 rubles to the Inspection of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties for Rechitsa District. The liability was subsidiary liability for the obligations of the additional-liability company "Rost plyus". The court also ordered him to pay 525 rubles in state duty to the republican budget. The judgment entered into force on 4 November 2016, and the debtor did not pay. The Belarusian tax inspection for Gomel Oblast then applied to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court to have the judgment recognised and enforced in Russia. Neither side appeared at the hearing, and the debtor raised no objections.

Key holdings

1. Under Article 241(1) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, Russian arbitrazh courts recognise and enforce foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards in economic disputes where an international treaty and federal law provide for it. The court quoted Articles III and V of the New York Convention as the framework, although the decision being enforced was a judgment of a state court. p. 2
2. The debtor had been properly notified of the Belarusian proceedings. The judgment had entered into force on 4 November 2016 and had not been paid. pp. 1–2
3. The court found none of the grounds for refusal listed in Article 244 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code. It recognised the Economic Court of Gomel Oblast's judgment of 13 October 2016 (Case No. 203-8/2016) and declared it enforceable in Russia. p. 3
4. The debtor bears the state duty for the application: 3,000.00 rubles to the federal budget. The operative part names this debtor as "Kazannikova Olga Aleksandrovna". The decision may be appealed to the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District within one month. p. 3

Procedural history

1. 13 October 2016The Economic Court of Gomel Oblast (Judge L.G. Baidan) orders O.A. Kazannikov to pay 62.52 rubles in subsidiary liability for the debts of "Rost plyus", plus 525 rubles state duty.
2. 4 November 2016The Belarusian judgment enters into force.
3. 18 September 2018The Moscow Arbitrazh Court recognises the Belarusian judgment and declares it enforceable in Russia. The decision itself also prints the dates 17 and 18 September 2017 for its operative and reasoned parts.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• A.G. Avagimyan Judge, Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• recognition and enforcement
• foreign court judgment
• New York Convention
• Article V
• Belarus
• Russia
• Economic Court of Gomel Oblast
• tax authority
• subsidiary liability
• Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 244
• Rost plyus
• state duty
• grounds for refusal
• proper notice

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