Judicial act: Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated March 24, 2022 in case No. А40-155367/2020
Court's findings:
1. The sanctions imposed on the plaintiff are US and EU public law, i.e. are instructions from foreign authorities on the imposition of a number of public law restrictions on the rights and obligations of individuals.
2. Public law does not have an extraterritorial character, and therefore the sanctions legislation of the USA and the EU does not create rights and does not impose obligations on Russian citizens and legal entities, which corresponds to the fundamental principles of the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states and the sovereignty of states.
3. Since the sanctions legislation of the US and the EU is contrary to public policy, and as a result should not be applied on the territory of the Russian Federation, Google LLC (USA) did not have the right to block the account.
4. The introduced restrictive measures (financial sanctions) prohibit third parties from entering into legal relations with the person to whom restrictive measures are applied in respect of any assets owned by him or on other recognized rights, including funds, controlled companies and other property.
5. The defendants did not provide any justification for blocking the account 6 years after the plaintiff was included in the sanctions lists. The defendants had no reason to unilaterally withdraw from the contract.
6. The consideration of the present case under the rules of foreign law will entail the application of provisions of sanctions legislation that do not comply with the principle of extraterritoriality and essentially deprive the plaintiff of the right to judicial protection.
Comment:
1. In this case, the Moscow Arbitration Court for the first time applied a new article 248.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code in the dispute between Tsargrad Media NJSC and Google, which places disputes involving Russian and certain foreign parties under the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitration courts, subject to sanctions of foreign states, unless otherwise provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation or by agreement of the parties.
2. If the agreement of the parties establishes otherwise, for the exclusive competence it is necessary to substantiate how foreign sanctions impede access to justice. At the same time, the objections that the plaintiff did not substantiate the presence of obstacles in his access to justice were rejected.
3. Thus, in our law enforcement practice, the following trend is clearly visible: regardless of the terms of the contract, with a high degree of probability, the court will refuse to satisfy the requirements of the party that complies with foreign sanctions.
Please note that in 2020 the law firm Vetrov & Partners was marked by the industry rating of law firms Pravo.ru-300 in the nominations Arbitration Proceedings, Dispute Resolution in Courts of General Jurisdiction and is one of the regional companies throughout Russia in these nominations.
In the event that your litigation or other dispute, contractual work or any other form of activity concerns the issues discussed in this or our other material, we recommend that you check and make sure that your legal position complies with the latest changes in practice and legislation.
We will be happy to provide you with legal assistance regarding the minimization of legal risks and available opportunities. We will try to find a solution that is right for you.
Call +7 (383) 310-38-76 or write to info@vitvet.com.
Our law firm provides various legal services in different cities of Russia (including Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Omsk, Barnaul, Krasnoyarsk, Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, Irkutsk, Chita, Vladivostok, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Samara, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa, Volgograd, Perm, Voronezh, Saratov, Krasnodar, Tolyatti, Sochi).
David Glikshtein, manager. I write articles, look for interesting information and suggest ways to use it in practice. I believe that thanks to high-quality legal analytics, clients come to a law firm, and not vice versa. Do you agree? Then let's be friends on Facebook.