OOO Ukrtransholding v. OOO Servisnaya zheleznodorozhnaya kompaniya

At a glance

Parties

OOO Ukrtransholding (Ukraine), applicant, v. OOO Servisnaya zheleznodorozhnaya kompaniya (Russia), interested party

Case no.

Moscow Arbitrazh Court Case No. А40-146183/18-19-1026

Court

Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow (Judge S.V. Podgornaya)

Underlying award(s)

Judgment of the Commercial Court of Poltava Region (Ukraine) of 31 October 2017, Case No. 917/670/17. This was a foreign state-court judgment, not an arbitral award.

Forum and rules

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

Sector

Railway wagon repair

Outcome

The application for recognition and enforcement in Russia was refused (operative part announced 14 August 2018; full text 24 August 2018).

Amount

Ukrainian judgment: RUB 2,048,250 debt (equivalent to UAH 962,677.50), plus UAH 14,440.16 court fee (equivalent to RUB 30,723.74). The applicant bears the state duty for the Moscow application.

The dispute

On 22 September 2016 Ukrtransholding, a Ukrainian company, agreed to repair railway wagons for Servisnaya zheleznodorozhnaya kompaniya, a Moscow company. Under clause 4.6 of the contract, 50% of the price was due within two days of a wagon being sent for repair and 50% after the work was done. The Russian company did not pay RUB 2,048,250. On 31 October 2017 the Commercial Court of Poltava Region (Judge E.S. Semchuk) ordered it and OOO Alchevskoe avtotransportnoe predpriyatie 1067 to pay that sum plus the court fee. The judgment was not paid, and Ukrtransholding applied to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court to have it recognised and enforced in Russia. The debtor did not appear, although it had been notified.

Key holdings

1. The debtor was duly notified at its registered address under Article 123 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code and Article 165.1 of the Civil Code. The court therefore heard the application in its absence under Article 156 of the Code. p. 1–2
2. The court set out the legal framework: Article 241 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code; Articles III and V of the New York Convention, which it treated as governing recognition of foreign arbitral awards in Russia; and the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign court judgments in Article 244 of the Code. pp. 2–4
3. Citing Information Letter No. 156 of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court (26 February 2013), the court noted two points. A public-policy review must not become a review of the merits. And a court refuses recognition on its own motion if recognition would contradict Russian public policy. pp. 3–4
4. The court refused to recognise and enforce the Poltava judgment 'in view of the above circumstances'. It did not say which specific ground applied. The applicant bears the state duty under Articles 101, 102 and 110 of the Code. p. 4

Procedural history

1. 22 September 2016The parties conclude a contract for railway wagon repair services.
2. 31 October 2017The Commercial Court of Poltava Region orders payment of RUB 2,048,250 plus a court fee (Case No. 917/670/17).
3. 14 August 2018Hearing in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court; the operative part of the ruling is announced.
4. 24 August 2018Full text of the ruling refusing recognition and enforcement. It can be appealed to the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District within one month. The published documents do not show whether an appeal was filed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• S.V. Podgornaya Judge, Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow

For the claimant

R.M. Avetisyan

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• recognition and enforcement
• foreign court judgment
• New York Convention
• Article V
• public policy
• Russia
• Ukraine
• Commercial Court of Poltava Region
• Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 244
• Information Letter No. 156
• railway wagon repair
• debt recovery
• notice to absent party
• refusal of enforcement

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