Facts
Enforcement of a foreign FOSFA supply-contract award was sought in Russia. The debtor raised impartiality and the ability to exercise defence rights, among other objections.
Holding
The Supreme Court found insufficient assessment of public-policy and procedural-safeguard objections, quashed the court orders and remitted the case.
Limits
The determination concerns a particular award, its facts and restrictive measures. The 2024 act does not itself establish a general ban on foreign-award enforcement.
Arguments left unexamined
The Court required assessment of enforcement consequences, alleged connections through FOSFA committees, appointment procedures and practical defence opportunities under restrictions. In relation to the tribunal composed of Ukrainian, British and Danish nationals, it also articulated a rebuttable presumption of a lack of impartiality and objectivity. That is a distinct proposition of the determination and should be identified when explaining the Court’s position.
What the procedural outcome means
This was a remand, not a final refusal or annulment of the foreign award. Distinguish the Court’s approach from the author’s assessment and from any later procedural outcome, which this case note does not establish.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.