Introduction
Recent landmark court cases in Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have highlighted the distinct approaches these countries take when it comes to the enforcement of foreign court rulings related to real estate situated within their jurisdictions. These cases underscore the significant differences in how Ukraine and the UAE perceive legal authority over property, which is particularly relevant for creditors operating across borders.
I. DCC Case No. 156/2025: Real Estate as a "Sovereign Zone" in the UAE
In the UAE, and Dubai in particular, the existence of property within the Emirate poses a substantial obstacle to the enforcement of foreign court orders.
- Exclusive Jurisdiction: The Dubai courts have firmly asserted their exclusive authority over any real estate located within the Emirate. No foreign court is permitted to exercise jurisdiction over property in Dubai.
- Public Order: The court held that respecting this jurisdiction is paramount to the country’s sovereignty. For example, a UK court’s order to seize a luxury apartment in Dubai was considered to contradict the UAE’s exclusive jurisdiction.
- The Outcome: The Dubai Court of Cassation concluded that local courts cannot relinquish their control over property, thereby rendering the UK court’s order unenforceable.
II. Ukraine Supreme Court Case No. 910/5107/20: Real Estate as a "Commercial Asset"
In contrast, Ukraine treats real estate as a commercial asset that can facilitate international financial cooperation, rather than being a source of jurisdictional conflict.
- Universal Scope: Ukrainian law acknowledges that bankruptcy proceedings initiated in another country, such as Czechia, encompass all assets owned by the debtor worldwide, including those situated in Ukraine.
- Purpose of Assistance: In this instance, a foreign liquidator sought to recover an apartment in Kyiv through a bankruptcy process. The Ukrainian Supreme Court regarded this as a legitimate action to assist creditors, not as an infringement on national territory.
- The Outcome: The court imposed a moratorium and authorised the foreign representative to manage or recover the property in Kyiv, provided local legal procedures were respected.
III. Limited Gateways for Foreign Judgment Property Seizure
The UAE
When reviewing property-related judgments, UAE courts have maintained a consistent stance regarding foreign rulings. The recent DCC case No. 542/2024 reaffirmed the UAE’s commitment to exclusive jurisdiction over property within its borders. This conclusion was based on the Federal Decree No. 53/1999, relating to the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, which explicitly excludes bankruptcy decisions from the scope of enforceable foreign judgments from countries members of the convention. As such, the court denied recognition of the Saudi bankruptcy order.
Although there are few cases on this matter, the prevailing trend indicates significant difficulties in enforcing foreign bankruptcy proceedings (as well as other property-related rulings) against UAE real estate.
Nonetheless, this position is not absolute. Property recovery has been allowed in cases where parties have mutually agreed on property matters before another court. For instance, in DCC case No. 592/2023, the enforcement of a foreign judgment was permitted where there was reciprocity and prior agreement between the parties, as the UAE courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. It has been admitted by the court here:
“as those properties were registered with the Dubai Lands and Properties Department in the name of the appellant, who is a foreigner, and who agreed before the British court to transfer the ownership and beneficial interest in the two properties to the respondent. Therefore, the enforcement of the foreign judgment was merely an execution of it, and the courts of the State did not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the dispute, and there is reciprocity between the State that issued the judgment and the UAE.”
Ukraine
Although the Ukrainian approach illustrates that bankruptcy proceedings may serve as a legitimate mechanism for managing a debtor’s property from abroad, this does not mean Ukraine will always prioritise cooperation over exclusive jurisdiction either. There have been cases where enforcement actions against real estate in Ukraine were denied, notably where principles of exclusive jurisdiction were invoked.
In its case No. 727/9668/24, the Supreme Court of Ukraine ultimately denied the enforcement of a Canadian judgment based on several legal grounds:
- Reclassification as an "Enforceable Order": The Supreme Court of Ukraine found that a request for simple recognition was insufficient when the order required a specific action, such as the transfer of title. The order was thus treated as one requiring enforcement.
- Expiration of the 3-Year Deadline: Article 463 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that foreign judgments must be submitted for enforcement within three years of becoming legally binding. In this instance, the application was filed beyond the allowable period.
- Exclusivity of National Jurisdiction: The court emphasised that although wilful private transfers are not limited, foreign courts cannot supersede Ukrainian law concerning property rights associated with such transfers within its territory.
IV. Conclusion
In summary, the UAE legal system erects significant barriers to the enforcement of foreign court orders against real estate, based on exclusive jurisdiction and public order considerations. While Ukraine’s courts have adopted a more cooperative approach, viewing real estate as part of the global estate for international bankruptcy proceedings, the matters of public policy and exclusivity still represent substantial barriers there as well.
The principal differences in court approaches can be highlighted in:
Status of Local Land:
Protected by Exclusive Jurisdiction in the UAE, foreign courts are barred from issuing orders against UAE property.
Considered part of the Global Estate in Ukraine, foreign liquidators may be assisted in recovering assets.
Scope of Legal Prescriptions:
Articles 21 and 222 of the UAE Federal Civil Procedure Law provide that the location of property determines the court’s authority. Article 25(c) of the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation reinforced this principle in cases of bankruptcy in one of the member states.
Part VIII of the Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine prioritises cooperation to ensure all assets are accounted for.
Result for Judgment Creditor:
In the UAE, creditors cannot seize property using a foreign order.
In Ukraine, a foreign liquidator may be authorised to act regarding property within national jurisdiction.
Both Ukraine and the UAE are developing their legal systems to better align with international standards, albeit in markedly different ways. Ukraine is moving towards greater recognition of foreign judgments and sanctions, while the UAE is reinforcing exclusive jurisdiction and establishing specialised courts. These trends reflect a progressive shift in how each jurisdiction addresses bankruptcy and the recognition of foreign legal decisions.
In case you are seeking to recover property in one of the states discussed, our team of dedicated lawyers is ready to assist you in the most efficient and cost-effective ways.