Parallel Divorce Property Proceedings in Russia and Abroad: Which Court Has Jurisdiction?

When Do Foreign Court Proceedings Prevent a Russian Court from Hearing a Case?

When parallel court proceedings take place in Russia and abroad, several important factors must be considered.

First, whether the foreign court's judgment can be recognised or enforced in Russia. Under Article 406(2) of the Russian Civil Procedure Code, if proceedings involving the same parties, subject matter and grounds were commenced earlier before a foreign court whose judgment is eligible for recognition or enforcement in Russia, the Russian court must return the claim or leave it without consideration.

It is important to distinguish between the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Certain judgments, such as divorce judgments, may be recognised in Russia without separate judicial proceedings, provided that the statutory requirements are met. Other judgments, such as those ordering monetary payments or the division of marital property, may require formal recognition and enforcement proceedings.

Whether a foreign judgment can be recognised or enforced depends on its content, applicable international treaties and Russian law.

Read more → Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in Russia

Second, whether the Russian and foreign proceedings concern identical claims. For Article 406 to apply, the parties, subject matter and grounds of the claims must be identical. The mere existence of two court proceedings between the same spouses does not automatically require the Russian court to leave the claim without consideration.

Third, when the foreign proceedings were commenced. It is not sufficient to establish that one spouse filed a claim abroad before the other spouse initiated proceedings in Russia. There must be evidence that the foreign court proceedings were formally commenced before the Russian proceedings. These were precisely the issues examined by the Novosibirsk Regional Court in February 2026 in a case involving parallel marital property division proceedings in Russia and the Czech Republic.

The former spouses held both Russian and Czech citizenship and lived in the Czech Republic. Following their divorce, a dispute arose over the division of their marital property. On 20 August 2025, one spouse filed a property division claim with the Prague-East District Court in the Czech Republic. Several days later, on 25 August 2025, a court in Novosibirsk, Russia, accepted the other spouse's claim for division of marital property.

The defendant in the Russian proceedings requested that the claim be left without consideration because a similar dispute had already been initiated in the Czech Republic. The Russian court of first instance granted this request, relying on Articles 222 and 406 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code and the applicable bilateral treaty between Russia and the Czech Republic. However, the Novosibirsk Regional Court overturned that ruling and remitted the case to the court of first instance for examination on the merits.

Article 406(2) of the Russian Civil Procedure Code provides that a Russian court must return a claim or leave it without consideration where proceedings were previously commenced before a foreign court whose judgment is capable of recognition or enforcement in Russia, provided that the dispute involves the same parties, the same subject matter and the same grounds.

This rule reflects the principle of lis pendens, which seeks to prevent the same dispute from being litigated simultaneously before different courts where the applicable legal conditions are met. Its purpose is to avoid conflicting judgments and safeguard legal certainty.

To apply this rule, it is not sufficient to establish that the other spouse filed a claim abroad first. It is necessary to verify that foreign proceedings were actually commenced, that the resulting judgment is eligible for recognition or enforcement in Russia, and that the parties, subject matter and grounds of the claims are identical.

In the case under consideration, Russia and the Czech Republic were bound by a treaty on legal assistance providing for the mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments. Nevertheless, this alone was insufficient to justify leaving the Russian claim without consideration.

The Novosibirsk Regional Court identified two decisive circumstances. First, the case file did not contain sufficient evidence that the Czech court had accepted the property division claim for examination. The fact that the claim had been filed before the Russian proceedings was not, in itself, proof that the foreign proceedings had been formally commenced.

Second, the claims were not identical. In the Czech proceedings, one spouse sought the division of a Land Rover Sport vehicle and a plot of land. In the Russian proceedings, the other spouse sought the division of different marital assets. The appellate court emphasised that claims are identical only where the parties, subject matter and legal and factual grounds coincide. If even one of these elements differs, the claims cannot be treated as identical for the purpose of applying the rules on parallel proceedings.

Accordingly, the existence of two property division proceedings between the same former spouses does not necessarily require a Russian court to decline to hear the case. The court must examine which specific assets are being disputed and the grounds on which each claim is based.

When dealing with parallel court proceedings, it is important to establish whether the countries concerned are parties to an international treaty governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments. In this case, the relevant instrument was the Treaty between the USSR and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 12 August 1982.

One of the parties challenged the applicability of that treaty to relations between Russia and the Czech Republic. However, the Novosibirsk Regional Court confirmed that it remained applicable between the two states and provided for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in certain categories of civil and family cases.

Nevertheless, the existence of a treaty does not remove the need to satisfy the other requirements of Article 406 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code, including the identity of the disputes and proof that the foreign proceedings were commenced.

The ruling demonstrates that parallel proceedings concerning marital property may be possible where the claims are not identical and the relevant rules on international jurisdiction are satisfied. It remains necessary, however, to consider the assets concerned, the precise relief sought in each jurisdiction, any overlap between the claims and the effects of judgments that have already been issued. Particular attention should be paid to whether the same assets are included in both proceedings and whether any issues have already been determined by a foreign court.

For example, if one spouse seeks division of a particular property abroad while the other seeks division of different assets in Russia, the claims will not necessarily be identical. Conversely, describing the assets or formulating the claims differently does not, by itself, establish that the disputes are separate. The law applicable to the spouses' property relations and the prospects of recognising and enforcing judgments in the countries where the assets are located must also be assessed.

Before filing a claim in Russia, or objecting to proceedings already brought before a Russian court, it is important to obtain documents from the foreign court confirming both the filing and the formal commencement of the proceedings. These documents should identify the parties, the subject matter, the grounds of the claim and the assets in dispute.

The foreign claim must then be compared with the Russian claim, and the existence of any applicable international treaty should be verified. Where the foreign proceedings were commenced first but concern a different subject matter, there may be no basis for leaving the Russian claim without consideration.

At the same time, the procedural possibility of conducting separate proceedings does not guarantee that the resulting judgments will be recognised or enforced without difficulty in other jurisdictions.

The practical significance of the Novosibirsk Regional Court's ruling is that filing a claim abroad first does not give one spouse an unconditional right to determine which court will resolve the entire property dispute. The statutory requirements governing parallel proceedings must be established and supported by evidence.

If marital property division proceedings have already commenced abroad, this does not necessarily prevent a claim from being brought in Russia. The legal assessment must take into account the scope of each case, when the proceedings were commenced, the rules of international jurisdiction and the prospects of ecognizing and enforcing the resulting judgments.