Long and difficuly or short and simple???

If the request on the enforcement of the foreign court's decision is duly executed and filed with all of the documents, the court shall inform the debtor within five days upon receipt of such request and provide the latter 1 month to file the objection. After receiving the objection or refusal to file the objection from the debtor, or after a month, in the event of the debtor's silence, the court shall rule on the date, time and place of consideration of the request, of which the parties are notified no later than ten days before the date of consideration.

Following consideration of the request in open court session, the court shall rule on granting permission to enforce the foreign judgement or on refusal to grant the request in this regard.

The procedure apparently is simple enough and it should not take more than two months. However, as practice shows, there are many ways to "delay" the process.

The party may request for postponement of consideration of a request for enforcement of foreign judgement by a court. Moreover, the law does not contain restrictions on the allowable number of postponements of consideration, which may create an opportunity of procedural abuse in the form of delaying the process.

The analysis of the practice shows that the average period from filing the request for consideration to the delivery of a judgement by the competent court in fact amounts to six months.

The delay in the actual enforcement of the judgement for the significant period may be used by an unscrupulous debtor in order to withdraw assets or otherwise avoid payment of debt, which actually makes it impossible to grant the creditor's claims which have been already recognized by court.

In order to ensure protection against such potential violations of the creditor's rights, the law provides for the possibility of applying interim remedy within the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements and international arbitration awards. The interim remedy is a temporary restriction on the subjective rights, freedoms and interests of the defendant or other persons associated with him/her in order to ensure subsequent administration of justice and granting of the plaintiff's (applicant's) claims.

The use of such an instrument is possible both before requesting the court for enforcement of the foreign judgement and at any stage of the proceedings.

When resolving the issue of securing the claim, the court takes into account whether the potential threat of non-enforcement of the judgement is proven, as well as the balance of interests of the parties and other participants in the trial considering the principle of proportionality. The proportionality means that a court correlates the negative consequences of taking measures to secure a claim with those negative consequences that may result from the failure to take such measures, taking into account the correspondence of right or legitimate interest for which the applicant seeks protection, and the pecuniary consequences of the prohibition to take the certain actions.

Therefore, the applicant should justify the clear reasons and the urgent need to secure a claim, prove that the risks of events or the debtor's actions, which may complicate or prevent the enforcement of the judicial act, are serious and real in the application for security.