Originally from The Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Russia

Preview Page

The NY Convention and ICA Law place the burden of proving
inadequate notice on the party resisting enforcement, but do not state
by what law the adequacy of notice is to be assessed. There are three
obvious candidates: (a) the law chosen by the parties, (b) the law of
the place of arbitration,1 and (c) the law of the enforcing forum. The
law in question could in some cases affect whether the court or only
the parties would have the right to raise an article V(1)(b) objection.
It has been said, for example, said that “Article V(1)(b) cannot be
considered as having the effect that a violation of due process would
not also fall under the public policy provision of Article V(2)(b).”2 If
that is so, then it would appear that an inadequate notice objection
could be made by the party resisting enforcement under any of the
above laws, but by the enforcing court, sua sponte, only if notice
were deemed inadequate under the law and legal regime of the
enforcing forum (article V(2)(b) provides for “the public policy of
that country,” i.e. the enforcing state). In 2013 the Russian Supreme
Commercial Court addressed this potential overlap of articles
V(1)(b) and V(2)(b). It recommended that the commercial court
“apply the public policy exception as a ground for denying
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and awards in
exceptional cases and not in place of the enumerated grounds for
denial of recognition and enforcement that are provided by
international treaties of the Russian Federation and norms of the