Introduction
In a decision dated 10 September 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow in Case No. A40-205251/25-19-1598 rendered an order on the recognition and enforcement in Russia of a judgment issued by the Nanhu District People’s Court of Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China.
The Moscow court permitted the Chinese judgment creditor to apply directly to the Russian court. It found that the creditor had a sufficient presence in Russia for the purposes of Article 17 of the 1992 Russia-China Treaty on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters.
Factual Background
The applicant, Jiaxing Cavort Hardware Co., Ltd., sought recognition and enforcement of a judgment rendered by the Nanhu District People’s Court on 13 December 2024 in Case No. (2023) Zhe 0402 Min Chu 6407. The respondent was the Russian company ZITAR-SNAB LLC.
The Chinese court ordered ZITAR-SNAB to pay USD 569,525.38 within 15 days after the judgment became effective. It also awarded interest on that amount from 26 September 2019 until payment, calculated by reference to the rate announced by the Bank of China for comparable US-dollar loans during the relevant period.
According to the Moscow court, the Chinese judgment became effective on 21 May 2025 and remained unpaid.
ZITAR-SNAB applied to have the Russian proceedings left without consideration. It argued, among other things, that the creditor was required to submit its application through the Chinese court that had rendered the judgment rather than applying directly to a Russian court.
The debtor also disputed the finality of the Chinese judgment and maintained that deficiencies in service had deprived it of an opportunity to appeal. Its remaining objections concerned the Chinese court’s jurisdiction, the identification of the parties to the underlying transaction, the assessment of invoices and other commercial documents, and alleged breaches of Chinese foreign-exchange rules.
Legal Considerations
Direct application under Article 17 of the treaty
Recognition and enforcement were governed by the Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, signed on 19 June 1992.
Article 17 establishes the ordinary procedure for submitting an application:
“The applicant shall submit the application to the court which rendered the decision, and that court shall transmit it to the court of the other Contracting Party in accordance with the procedure provided in Article 2 of this Treaty.”
The provision nevertheless permits direct filing in defined circumstances:
“The applicant may, however, submit the application directly to the competent court of the Contracting Party in whose territory the decision is to be recognized and enforced, if he has his domicile or place of sojourn there.”
ZITAR-SNAB argued that the location of a legal entity had to be determined exclusively by its place of state registration under Article 54(2) of the Russian Civil Code. On that interpretation, the Chinese company could not rely on the exception because it was incorporated outside Russia.
The Moscow court rejected that position. It referred to Article 1 of the treaty, under which nationals and legal entities of one contracting state are entitled to the same legal protection and access to the courts in the other contracting state as that state’s own nationals and legal entities. In the court’s view, this treaty guarantee could not be artificially restricted through the application of domestic civil-law rules concerning a company’s registered location.
The court also relied on Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It stated that treaty terms must be interpreted in good faith, in their context and in light of the treaty’s object and purpose. The expression translated as “place of sojourn” or “presence” was therefore given a functional meaning rather than being equated with the formal place of incorporation.
The applicant had opened a settlement account with a Russian bank, registered with the Russian tax authorities and obtained Russian taxpayer identification and tax-registration codes. It had also issued a legalized power of attorney to professional representatives in Russia.
Taken together, the court considered these acts sufficient to establish a legal connection with Russian territory and a “presence” in Russia within the meaning of Article 17. The application could therefore be submitted directly to the Moscow court.
The order does not state whether this was the first Russian decision to apply the exception in this manner.
Recognition and enforcement framework
Under Article 241(1) of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, foreign judgments concerning commercial or other economic activities may be recognized and enforced where this is provided for by an international treaty or federal law. Article 16 of the 1992 treaty requires Russia and China to recognize and enforce civil judgments rendered in the other contracting state.
The court also referred to paragraph 7 of Information Letter No. 96 of the Presidium of the former Supreme Arbitrazh Court, dated 22 December 2005. It stated that Chinese judgments may be recognized and enforced following a direct application to a Russian arbitrazh court, provided that the documents required by Article 17(2) of the treaty are submitted.
The applicant produced what the court described as a complete set of notarized, translated and apostilled documents. These included an official response from the Russian Ministry of Justice concerning notification of the debtor.
Under Articles 243 and 244 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, the Moscow court was required to determine whether any statutory ground existed for refusing recognition. It found no such ground.
Notice of the Chinese proceedings
The debtor’s contention that it had not been properly informed of the Chinese proceedings was rejected.
An official response from the Russian Ministry of Justice dated 3 June 2024 showed that an authorized representative of ZITAR-SNAB had appeared at the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 5 April 2024. The representative personally received 386 pages of documents translated into Russian, including the statement of claim and a summons.
The Moscow court accordingly found that ZITAR-SNAB had learned of the proceedings and the hearing date more than eight months before the Chinese judgment was rendered.
The debtor also argued that service of the judgment by public announcement had prevented it from appealing. The Moscow court referred to an order of the Jiaxing Intermediate People’s Court dated 29 May 2026, which had found that public announcement was permissible and that there was no causal connection between the method of service and the debtor’s failure to appeal.
A legalized and translated certificate from the Chinese court confirmed that the judgment had entered into force. The Moscow court considered that the debtor had not been deprived of its right to be heard but had elected not to participate in the Chinese proceedings.
For a related discussion of notice as a ground for refusing enforcement in Russia, see our earlier article, Enforcement of English Judgments in Russia II: Service Abroad.
Public-policy and merits objections
ZITAR-SNAB argued that the Chinese court had incorrectly assessed pro forma invoices, agreements with third parties and transfer documents. It also alleged that the Chinese court had confused ZITAR-SNAB with another company named ZITAR.
The Moscow court held that these objections concerned the merits of the underlying dispute. Article 243(4) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code prevents a Russian recognition court from reviewing the substance of a foreign judgment. Questions concerning the parties’ identities and the assessment of invoices, transport documents and payment records had already been examined in the Chinese proceedings.
The court likewise declined to reconsider the Chinese court’s jurisdiction. It treated that question as a matter for the court hearing the underlying dispute and rejected the debtor’s expert opinion on Chinese law as inadmissible for the proposed purpose.
The debtor further contended that payment to an account in Hong Kong breached Chinese foreign-exchange regulations. The Moscow court held that the public-policy exception in Article 244(1)(7) protects the fundamental principles of the Russian legal order; it is not a mechanism for administering another state’s foreign-exchange legislation.
The 1996 Russia-China agreement on cooperation in foreign-exchange control did not produce a different result. The court found that the agreement concerned inter-agency exchanges of information, seminars and joint research and did not authorize Russian courts to refuse recognition of Chinese judgments.
The court also rejected an argument based on Article VIII, Section 2(b), of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. It held that the provision concerns exchange contracts whose direct subject is the exchange of currencies and does not apply to an ordinary international contract for the sale of goods.
The recovery of a commercial debt did not, in the court’s assessment, affect Russian sovereignty, security or the fundamental principles of Russian law. Enforcement under a Russian writ would provide an independent legal basis for the resulting bank transfer.
The court therefore dismissed the application to leave the proceedings without consideration, recognized and declared the Chinese judgment enforceable in Russia, and ordered ZITAR-SNAB to reimburse RUB 204,270 in state fees. The order may be appealed to the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District within one month of its issuance.
