Key takeaways from “AVELLUM Disputes Day: Bridging Borders in Cross-Jurisdictional Enforcement”

On 16 October 2025, AVELLUM hosted its third annual “AVELLUM Disputes Day”. This year’s event focused on the key challenges and practical solutions for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards.

Leading practitioners from BarentsKrans, Le 16 Law, Kaimakliotis, Niederer Kraft Frey, and AVELLUM discussed the most effective enforcement instruments across key jurisdictions: from streamlined EU mechanisms and unique national procedures in France, Switzerland, Cyprus, the Netherlands, and Ukraine, to sophisticated strategies for enforcing awards against sovereign assets and applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

The webinar was moderated by Vadim Medvedev and Oleksii Maslov, partners at AVELLUM, together with Roman Syniuta, managing associate.

Tom Hoyer, partner at BarentsKrans, reviewed key EU mechanisms for enforcing foreign judgments. He mapped key legal instruments, including the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), which ensures automatic recognition of judgments in EU countries without the need for exequatur, and the European Payment Order for the recovery of uncontested claims. Tom also noted the importance of the Hague Convention, which now simplifies mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between, among others, the EU, Ukraine, and the UK.

Alexandra Szekely, partner at Le 16 Law, explained key contours of corporate veil piercing under French law. She described standard piercing (when a shareholder is made to pay company debts) and reverse piercing (when company assets are seized for an owner’s personal debts). Alexandra emphasised that outside of insolvency proceedings, both approaches are applied only in exceptional cases: fraud, abuse of rights, or simulation.

Oleksandra Syerova, managing associate at AVELLUM, continuing on veil piercing, drew parallels and highlighted the differences in the Ukrainian approach compared to the French one. She explained that Ukrainian courts may move beyond statutory cases and apply the doctrine based on general principles of civil law.

Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, addressed enforcement against sovereigns and emphasised that despite significant challenges with sovereign immunity, recent trends in France are creating new enforcement opportunities against foreign state assets. She stressed that enforcement is limited to commercial assets or those covered by an explicit waiver, with the creditor bearing the burden of proving their non-public use. Julie underscored the importance of early asset tracing, starting from the dispute planning stage.

Andrea Psara, partner at Kaimakliotis, reminded why interim measures in Cyprus are a key tool in cross-border disputes. She described effective options for obtaining worldwide freezing and disclosure orders, highlighting recent procedural reforms widening the availability of interim measures in support of foreign arbitration and court proceedings.

Nicolas Kuonen, partner at Niederer Kraft Frey, explained how to navigate enforcement in Switzerland amidst banking secrecy, debunking some of the common misconceptions about Switzerland. He stressed that while fishing expeditions for bank accounts are prohibited, a creditor only needs prima facie evidence of bank relations to obtain an attachment order. A final court decision in the creditor’s favour lifts banking secrecy, compelling the bank to disclose asset details to the Debt Collection Office.

In conclusion, despite different histories and regulatory approaches, modern legal systems have much in common, both as a result of harmonization within the EU and due to the general trend of globalization. At the same time, our discussion clearly confirmed that each jurisdiction retains unique instruments and local specifics that must be considered as early as the claim-planning stage.