[The Collegium has cited Art 26 Code of Civil Procedure on the subject matter competence of civil courts.]

Mr A and Ms B [the applicant and the judgment creditor] entered into a legal marriage on 25 January 2018. The marriage was registered in the State of New York. On 24 October 2018, a child was born from their joint life. They lived together in the United States. The applicant filed a lawsuit with the Kings County Family Court, New York, requesting a divorce from the respondent. Based on the decision of this court dated 16 January 2020, the parties were divorced, and the respondent was ordered to pay monthly alimony for the maintenance of the child in favour of the applicant.

However, due to the respondent’s refusal to abide by the court decision, the alimony recovery case was reviewed several times. Copies of these decisions are certified by the judges who handed them down and are available in the case file. The court’s decision has entered into legal force and has not been revoked.

Based on the presented documents and the facts established by the court, the applicant is requesting the recognition and enforcement of the U.S. State Family Court’s decisions in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

[The Collegium has cited Art 17 Constitution and Arts 364, 367 CCP]. The claim of the judgment creditor partially satisfies the foregoing requirements [of Art 367 CCP].

Based on the documents in the case, it appears from the decision of the New York State Family Court dated 30 July 2021, that the respondent argued that he was unaware of the Family Court’s decision against him. Consequently, his appeal to annul the court document was dismissed.

During the court proceedings, the responded argued that, although he had received the summons sent by the [family] court, his brother told him that it was merely a formality and there was no need to attend court, and that he was unaware of local [New York] laws. However, these arguments were thoroughly examined by the court, which concluded that the individual against whom the decision had been made had intentionally refused to attend court.

In this case, the judgement debtor should have been aware that a court case had been initiated against him and a decision had been made, as the court decisions had been sent to him via postal services.

However, in addition to complying with the above requirements of the [Uzbek] law, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court’s decision requires a treaty between the initiating country and the receiving country.

Specifically, according to Art 370 (1) (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court shall refuse to recognise and enforce the judgment of a foreign court or a foreign arbitration court (arbitration) in whole or in part if the judgment was rendered by a court of a foreign state which is not a party to the international treaties of the Republic of Uzbekistan relating to the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of a foreign court and a foreign arbitration court (arbitration).

In such a case, the court of first instance, based on the aforementioned legal requirements, noted that there was no treaty between the Republic of Uzbekistan and the United States of America regarding legal assistance and, therefore, concluded that the application be rejected.

The court of appeal, taking into account the circumstances mentioned above, has concluded the following.

In the complaint, the applicant raised the issue of non-compliance with Article 27 of the [United Nations] Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention sets out general principles but does not include norms that create obligations between states. States ratify the Convention by acknowledging their commitment to abide by these principles, but this does not imply an obligation to enforce specific court decisions.

In this case, the collegium does not discuss the legality and justification of the foreign court’s decision. However, there are procedural requirements for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions, and non-compliance with these requirements leads to the rejection of the application.

Moreover, the complaint also refers to the New York Convention 1958 on on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. However, the provisions of this Convention only regulate relations concerning arbitral awards. The decisions the applicant refers to are not issued by the arbitration court of the United States but rather by a family court.

Taking into account the circumstances mentioned above and reviewing the arguments raised in the complaint, the collegium gives a legal assessment to the arguments put forward by the applicant and decides to leave the first-instance court’s decision unchanged, dismissing the appeal.