Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Russian Move for Keeping Judicial Business at Home

December 6, 2012/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

The Financial Times has reported yesterday about the willingness of Russian elite to repatriate Russian judicial business back home.

Russian oligarchs have notoriously been litigating essentially Russian cases in London in the last few years. The dispute between Roman Abramovich and Boris Beresovsky heard by the English High Court was the most famous of such cases.

In a recent judgment, one of Russia’s supreme court annuled a clause whereby foreign parties could avoid being sued in Russia. It is reported that the clause was a “unilateral option clause”. The court stated that it had nothing to do with protectionism, which was a separate issue. It probably is.

More interestingly, Russian higher judges have stated that they were willing to fight against unfair competition from other jurisdictions. They went as far as threatening to retaliate against parties participating to such proceedings abroad, and indeed against lawyers and judges aiding and abetting.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2012-12-06 12:07:092012-12-08 06:48:12Russian Move for Keeping Judicial Business at Home

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
Link to: Russian Court Strikes Down Unilateral Option Jurisdiction Clauses Link to: Russian Court Strikes Down Unilateral Option Jurisdiction Clauses Russian Court Strikes Down Unilateral Option Jurisdiction Clauses Link to: Brussels I Recast Set in Stone Link to: Brussels I Recast Set in Stone Brussels I Recast Set in Stone
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top