Yes, this question may be brought before a Russian court. However, recognition of a French court decision in Russia is not automatic.
Under Russian law, several situations need to be distinguished: what kind of decision is involved, whether it requires enforcement, whether the other party objects, whether there is an international treaty between Russia and the relevant state, and whether reciprocity can be established.
Is there a treaty between Russia and France on the recognition of court decisions?
There is no specific international treaty between Russia and France that directly provides for the mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions in civil and family matters.
In one of our cases, we requested the position of the Russian Ministry of Justice on whether there is a treaty between Russia and France on the recognition and enforcement of court decisions, and how the possibility of recognising French judicial acts in Russia should generally be assessed.
The Ministry of Justice stated that there is no such specific treaty between Russia and France. Therefore, the issue must be assessed under Russian procedural law and applicable international instruments. At the same time, the response of the Ministry of Justice does not state that French court decisions cannot be recognised in Russia simply because France is considered an “unfriendly” state.
This is an important framework: the political status of a state should not automatically replace legal analysis.
Why does this not mean guaranteed recognition?
The response of the Ministry of Justice does not mean that any French court decision will be recognised in Russia. It does not.
Russian court practice on this issue is not uniform. In some cases, Russian courts have taken a stricter approach and refused to recognise and enforce French court decisions.
For example, in case No. 66-81/2023, the First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction considered the recognition and enforcement in Russia of a decision of a French court on the recovery of monetary sums. The court stated that there is no international treaty between Russia and France providing for the mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions in civil matters. The creditor relied on the principle of reciprocity, but the court concluded that no evidence had been provided that Russian court decisions in a similar category of disputes were being enforced in France.
The court also took into account that France is included in the list of foreign states and territories that commit unfriendly actions against the Russian Federation, Russian legal entities and individuals. In the court’s reasoning, this confirmed the absence of reciprocity between Russia and France during the relevant period.
What does this practice show?This practice is important not because it means an automatic refusal in all cases involving French court decisions.
It shows something different: if recognition or enforcement of a foreign decision is based not on an international treaty, but on the principle of reciprocity, the party must think through the evidentiary basis in advance.
It is not enough simply to refer to the fact that French courts had previously recognised certain Russian court decisions. The court may examine whether:
- there is current practice of recognising Russian court decisions in France;
- those decisions relate to a comparable category of disputes;
- they were issued in a comparable period;
- the submitted documents are reliable, relevant and admissible evidence;
- the legal and political-legal situation had changed by the time the application was filed with the Russian court.
This is where the status of an “unfriendly state” may become not an independent formal prohibition, but an additional argument in assessing the principle of reciprocity.
What does this mean for family cases?
For international family disputes, this has practical significance.
For example, one spouse has already brought proceedings in France seeking divorce and addressing issues concerning the child. Then the other spouse, knowing about the French proceedings, initiates a similar dispute in Russia.
In this situation, it is important to assess in advance not only the question of “where it is faster to obtain a decision”. It is necessary to understand how the two proceedings and two possible court decisions will interact later.
