The Russian counter-sanctions measures and enforcement of arbitral awards.
As of today, multiple casesโeither adjudicated or pending before various levels of Russian courtsโillustrate differing impacts of counter-sanctions measures on arbitral awards.
In a previous case decided on June 26, 2025, arguments against a domestic arbitral award based on counter-sanction measures were unsuccessful. In Case No. ะ40-211260/2024, the award creditor sought enforcement of a domestic arbitral award. The award debtor objected, citing counter-sanctions measures under Russian Presidential decrees.
The dispute arose out of an assignment agreement. Initially, there was a supply contract dated 24.01.2022, concluded between an Estonian ๐ช๐ช company (the buyer, and the initial creditor) and a Russian ๐ท๐บ company (the seller, and the debtor). The buyer made an advance payment. Subsequently, an assignment agreement dated 24.11.2023 was concluded between the Estonian company and a Russian companyโthe second creditorโwho commenced arbitration and obtained an award in its favor in 2024.
According to the debtor's view, the assignment agreement violated Russian counter-sanctions measures under the Russian Presidential decrees. However, both the court of first instance and the cassation court rejected this argument, holding that the Presidential decrees had not been breached by the arbitrator and, moreover, that the Presidential decrees did not apply to the assignment agreement in question. Thus, courts granted the enforcement of the arbitral award.
To conclude, whether the Russian counter-sanctions measures may undermine the enforceability of arbitral awardsโboth domestic and internationalโis a matter that requires careful, case-by-case consideration.
A permanent link: https://smnlaw.ru/sanctions-award-1
ProArbitration.Ru
As of today, multiple casesโeither adjudicated or pending before various levels of Russian courtsโillustrate differing impacts of counter-sanctions measures on arbitral awards.
In a previous case decided on June 26, 2025, arguments against a domestic arbitral award based on counter-sanction measures were unsuccessful. In Case No. ะ40-211260/2024, the award creditor sought enforcement of a domestic arbitral award. The award debtor objected, citing counter-sanctions measures under Russian Presidential decrees.
The dispute arose out of an assignment agreement. Initially, there was a supply contract dated 24.01.2022, concluded between an Estonian ๐ช๐ช company (the buyer, and the initial creditor) and a Russian ๐ท๐บ company (the seller, and the debtor). The buyer made an advance payment. Subsequently, an assignment agreement dated 24.11.2023 was concluded between the Estonian company and a Russian companyโthe second creditorโwho commenced arbitration and obtained an award in its favor in 2024.
According to the debtor's view, the assignment agreement violated Russian counter-sanctions measures under the Russian Presidential decrees. However, both the court of first instance and the cassation court rejected this argument, holding that the Presidential decrees had not been breached by the arbitrator and, moreover, that the Presidential decrees did not apply to the assignment agreement in question. Thus, courts granted the enforcement of the arbitral award.
To conclude, whether the Russian counter-sanctions measures may undermine the enforceability of arbitral awardsโboth domestic and internationalโis a matter that requires careful, case-by-case consideration.
A permanent link: https://smnlaw.ru/sanctions-award-1
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฟ In Case No. ะ50-4304/2025, the cassation court, by its decision dated July 21, 2025, upheld the lower court's ruling recognizing and enforcing a decision of a Kazakh court in Russia. #Kazakhstan
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ ๐ฉ๐ช In the absence of a bilateral treaty or evidence that German courts recognize Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity, German court decisions are not recognized in Russia.
In Case No. ะ56-49800/2024, concerning the recognition and enforcement of a German court decision (issued by the Landgericht Stuttgart) in Russia, the Russian court states:
Since there is no bilateral treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the recognition and enforcement of court decisions, and the applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that German courts have recognized and enforced Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity within the past three years, the court denies the application for recognition and enforcement of the German court decision in Russia.
Notably, in the first round of consideration, the Russian court recognized and enforced the German court's decision despite the Russian anti-sanctions measures. However, the cassation court ordered the case to be reconsidered, and in the second round, the court dismissed the application.
It is also worth noting that the Russian court requested evidence of German court practice regarding the recognition and enforcement of Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity over the past three years, i.e., since 2022. #Germany
ProArbitration.Ru
In Case No. ะ56-49800/2024, concerning the recognition and enforcement of a German court decision (issued by the Landgericht Stuttgart) in Russia, the Russian court states:
Since there is no bilateral treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the recognition and enforcement of court decisions, and the applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that German courts have recognized and enforced Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity within the past three years, the court denies the application for recognition and enforcement of the German court decision in Russia.
Notably, in the first round of consideration, the Russian court recognized and enforced the German court's decision despite the Russian anti-sanctions measures. However, the cassation court ordered the case to be reconsidered, and in the second round, the court dismissed the application.
It is also worth noting that the Russian court requested evidence of German court practice regarding the recognition and enforcement of Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity over the past three years, i.e., since 2022. #Germany
ProArbitration.Ru
If an international treaty to which Russia is a party establishes rules concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions that differ from those set forth in domestic law, the provisions of the international treaty shall prevail.
In Case No. A56-6573/2025, the applicant sought to prevent the enforcement of a Belarusian court decision in Russia.
The lower court, referring to Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code (which sets out the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions), granted the application by its decision dated April 4, 2025. The court found that the Belarusian court's decision would breach the public policy of Russia.
By its decision dated July 17, 2025, the Court of Cassation overturned the lower courtโs ruling and dismissed the application. The cassation court provides the following reasons:
If a foreign court decision originates from a country that is a party to the Commonwealth of Independent States Agreement dated March 20, 1992 concerning the resolution of disputes arising from business activities (in this case, a Belarusian court decision), then a Russian court must be guided by Article 9 of the Agreement, which sets out the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision. In such cases, Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code should not be applied, as it establishes the public policy defence (a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement), whereas Article 9 of the Agreement does not provide for this defence.
The cassation court approach is an important one:
First, Article 9 of the Agreement provides narrower grounds for refusing recognition of a court decision than Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code. For example, a violation of public policyโa commonly invoked defence against recognition and enforcementโis not a ground for refusal under Article 9 of the Agreement.
Second, as of today, the Agreement is in force in the following States: the Republic of Azerbaijan ๐ฆ๐ฟ, the Republic of Armenia ๐ฆ๐ฒ, the Republic of Belarus ๐ง๐พ, the Republic of Kazakhstan ๐ฐ๐ฟ, the Kyrgyz Republic ๐ฐ๐ฌ, the Russian Federation ๐ท๐บ, the Republic of Tajikistan ๐น๐ฏ, Turkmenistan ๐น๐ฒ, and the Republic of Uzbekistan ๐บ๐ฟ. Accordingly, court decisions originating from these countries may benefit from the favorable provision contemplated in Article 9 of the Agreement.
Whether the approach in Case No. A56-6573/2025 is spreading to other courts remains to be seen.
***
The permanent link to the blog post can be found here: https://smnlaw.ru/international-treaty1
***
ProArbitration.Ru
In Case No. A56-6573/2025, the applicant sought to prevent the enforcement of a Belarusian court decision in Russia.
The lower court, referring to Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code (which sets out the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions), granted the application by its decision dated April 4, 2025. The court found that the Belarusian court's decision would breach the public policy of Russia.
By its decision dated July 17, 2025, the Court of Cassation overturned the lower courtโs ruling and dismissed the application. The cassation court provides the following reasons:
If a foreign court decision originates from a country that is a party to the Commonwealth of Independent States Agreement dated March 20, 1992 concerning the resolution of disputes arising from business activities (in this case, a Belarusian court decision), then a Russian court must be guided by Article 9 of the Agreement, which sets out the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision. In such cases, Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code should not be applied, as it establishes the public policy defence (a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement), whereas Article 9 of the Agreement does not provide for this defence.
The cassation court approach is an important one:
First, Article 9 of the Agreement provides narrower grounds for refusing recognition of a court decision than Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code. For example, a violation of public policyโa commonly invoked defence against recognition and enforcementโis not a ground for refusal under Article 9 of the Agreement.
Second, as of today, the Agreement is in force in the following States: the Republic of Azerbaijan ๐ฆ๐ฟ, the Republic of Armenia ๐ฆ๐ฒ, the Republic of Belarus ๐ง๐พ, the Republic of Kazakhstan ๐ฐ๐ฟ, the Kyrgyz Republic ๐ฐ๐ฌ, the Russian Federation ๐ท๐บ, the Republic of Tajikistan ๐น๐ฏ, Turkmenistan ๐น๐ฒ, and the Republic of Uzbekistan ๐บ๐ฟ. Accordingly, court decisions originating from these countries may benefit from the favorable provision contemplated in Article 9 of the Agreement.
Whether the approach in Case No. A56-6573/2025 is spreading to other courts remains to be seen.
***
The permanent link to the blog post can be found here: https://smnlaw.ru/international-treaty1
***
ProArbitration.Ru
smnlaw.ru
If an international treaty to which Russia is a party establishes rules concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign courtโฆ
๐1
Tertiary jurisdiction?
A court that has jurisdiction to (i) assist in arbitration and/or (ii) annul or set aside an arbitral award is said to have primary jurisdiction. A court that has jurisdiction to enforce or refuse enforcement of an arbitral award is said to have secondary jurisdiction. It appears that a new type of jurisdiction is emerging โ tertiary jurisdiction โ referring to a court that grants anti-arbitration injunctions.
As follows from the Delhi High Court's decision dated July 25, 2025, MSA GLOBAL LLC (Oman) commenced ICC arbitration proceedings, seated in Singapore, against EPIL (India). The arbitral tribunal was constituted in 2023.
In 2025, EPIL challenged the constitution of the arbitral tribunal before the High Court of Singapore. This is consistent with the principle that such challenges should be brought before the court of the primary jurisdiction.
EPIL also obtained an anti-arbitration injunction from the Delhi High Court (India). The Delhi High Court held that it 'has the jurisdiction to entertain this civil suit as the arbitration proceedings are prima facie vexatious and oppressive in nature'. As long as the seat of arbitration is not in India, this appears to introduce a third jurisdictionโi.e., a State in which a court may issue injunctions against arbitral proceedings seated elsewhere.
๐ The Delhi High Courtโs decision dated July 25, 2025 is available at the following link - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59625072025IA97242025_170255.pdf
ProArbitration.Ru
A court that has jurisdiction to (i) assist in arbitration and/or (ii) annul or set aside an arbitral award is said to have primary jurisdiction. A court that has jurisdiction to enforce or refuse enforcement of an arbitral award is said to have secondary jurisdiction. It appears that a new type of jurisdiction is emerging โ tertiary jurisdiction โ referring to a court that grants anti-arbitration injunctions.
As follows from the Delhi High Court's decision dated July 25, 2025, MSA GLOBAL LLC (Oman) commenced ICC arbitration proceedings, seated in Singapore, against EPIL (India). The arbitral tribunal was constituted in 2023.
In 2025, EPIL challenged the constitution of the arbitral tribunal before the High Court of Singapore. This is consistent with the principle that such challenges should be brought before the court of the primary jurisdiction.
EPIL also obtained an anti-arbitration injunction from the Delhi High Court (India). The Delhi High Court held that it 'has the jurisdiction to entertain this civil suit as the arbitration proceedings are prima facie vexatious and oppressive in nature'. As long as the seat of arbitration is not in India, this appears to introduce a third jurisdictionโi.e., a State in which a court may issue injunctions against arbitral proceedings seated elsewhere.
๐ The Delhi High Courtโs decision dated July 25, 2025 is available at the following link - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59625072025IA97242025_170255.pdf
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ ๐จ๐ญ In Case No. A40-221290/2023, the cassation court by its decision dated July 29, 2025, upheld the lower court's decision recognizing and enforcing the Zurich-seated award in Russia. However, there is one issue: the award debtor likely has no assets within the Russian Federation, which raises the question of whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the enforcement matter. #Switzerland
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ ๐จ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ด๐ป๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ
In Case No. A56-120092/2023, the cassation court confirmed that an application for the recognition and enforcement of a court decision issued by a Chinese court in Russia must be submitted in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty Between the Peopleโs Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated June 19, 1992, rather than under Russian procedural law.
In the case at hand, a Chinese company sought recognition and enforcement in Russia of a Chinese court decision rendered against a Russian company.
The Russian Federation and the Peopleโs Republic of China are parties to the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters (signed in Beijing on June 19, 1992), which, among other things, governs the recognition and enforcement of court decisions and entered into force on November 14, 1993.
According to Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. That court is then responsible for transmitting the decision to a court in the other Contracting Partyโs country.
The Chinese company disregarded Article 17 of the Treaty and filed its application for recognition and enforcement directly with a Russian court, relying on Russian procedural law instead.
The court of first instance discontinued the proceedings, and the cassation court, in its decision dated July 31, 2025, upheld the lower courtโs approach, reiterating that under Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. #China
ProArbitration.Ru
In Case No. A56-120092/2023, the cassation court confirmed that an application for the recognition and enforcement of a court decision issued by a Chinese court in Russia must be submitted in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty Between the Peopleโs Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated June 19, 1992, rather than under Russian procedural law.
In the case at hand, a Chinese company sought recognition and enforcement in Russia of a Chinese court decision rendered against a Russian company.
The Russian Federation and the Peopleโs Republic of China are parties to the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters (signed in Beijing on June 19, 1992), which, among other things, governs the recognition and enforcement of court decisions and entered into force on November 14, 1993.
According to Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. That court is then responsible for transmitting the decision to a court in the other Contracting Partyโs country.
The Chinese company disregarded Article 17 of the Treaty and filed its application for recognition and enforcement directly with a Russian court, relying on Russian procedural law instead.
The court of first instance discontinued the proceedings, and the cassation court, in its decision dated July 31, 2025, upheld the lower courtโs approach, reiterating that under Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. #China
ProArbitration.Ru
๐2
Where a Russian party is subject to a foreign courtโs anti-suit injunction and seeks to withdraw its claim or appeal in a Russian court in order to comply with that injunction, the request must be denied by the Russian court as it would contravene the right of access to justice under Russian law (Case No. ะ21-12793/2023).
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
UPD. ๐ท๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฟ An appeal court has confirmed that a decision of the Court of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC Court) does not fall within Article 54 of the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters (Chisinauโฆ
๐ท๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฟ For those of you following the battle over the recognition and enforcement of an AIFC Court decision in Russia, the cassation court has published its decision. It is available in Russian at the link. The applicant still has the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the case before the Russian Supreme Court. #Kazakhstan
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
In Case No. ะ42-5661/2025, a court of first instance followed the Russian Supreme Court's approach (Case No. ะ45-19015/2023) and concluded that arbitrators from the Netherlands ๐ณ๐ฑ and Singapore ๐ธ๐ฌ lacked impartiality and objectivity, as these countries are considered โunfriendlyโ to Russia ๐ท๐บ.
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ฌ๐ง Foreign Ministry Statement on the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the arbitral proceedings concerning the Kerch Strait Incident of November 25, 2018
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2042453/
๐ซ๐ท Dรฉclaration du ministรจre des Affaires รฉtrangรจres de Russie concernant la sortie de la Fรฉdรฉration de Russie de la procรฉdure d'arbitrage sur "l'incident de Kertch" du 25 novembre 2018
https://mid.ru/fr/foreign_policy/news/2042453/
ProArbitration.Ru
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2042453/
๐ซ๐ท Dรฉclaration du ministรจre des Affaires รฉtrangรจres de Russie concernant la sortie de la Fรฉdรฉration de Russie de la procรฉdure d'arbitrage sur "l'incident de Kertch" du 25 novembre 2018
https://mid.ru/fr/foreign_policy/news/2042453/
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฐ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐๐ข๐ฅ
While one arbitrazh cassation court ruled that an international treatyโthe CIS Agreement of March 20, 1992โprevails over domestic procedural law (Case No. ะ56-6573/2025), another cassation court reached the opposite conclusion.
In Case No. ะ41-51293/2024, the cassation court held that the domestic rule on the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts prevails over the CIS Treaty. As a result, a sanctioned company avoided a dispute resolution clause in favor of a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan ๐ฐ๐ฟ . #Kazakhstan
P.S. There are 10 arbitrazh cassation (district) courts in Russia ๐ท๐บ , so case-law practices may vary across jurisdictions.
ProArbitration.Ru
While one arbitrazh cassation court ruled that an international treatyโthe CIS Agreement of March 20, 1992โprevails over domestic procedural law (Case No. ะ56-6573/2025), another cassation court reached the opposite conclusion.
In Case No. ะ41-51293/2024, the cassation court held that the domestic rule on the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts prevails over the CIS Treaty. As a result, a sanctioned company avoided a dispute resolution clause in favor of a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan ๐ฐ๐ฟ . #Kazakhstan
P.S. There are 10 arbitrazh cassation (district) courts in Russia ๐ท๐บ , so case-law practices may vary across jurisdictions.
ProArbitration.Ru
On August 1, 2025, a Russian court of general jurisdiction granted interim measures freezing assets in support of an LCIA arbitration. The courtโs order has been appealed.
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ ๐๐ป๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ
The public policy defense is an extremely powerful tool against the enforcement of foreign court decisions and/or foreign arbitral awards in Russia. It has been so for quite a while.
In Russia, there is no concept of international public policy. Instead, since 2022, a new concept has emerged โ the temporarily applied public policy doctrine. This concept has allowed Russian courts, often erroneously, to rely on presidential decrees on counter-sanctions measures to refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions and/or arbitral awards.
That said, it is worth noting that some courts and judges apply the public policy defense properly and do not allow debtors to evade their obligations. In a recent case (No. ะ76-43222/2024), a cassation court rejected the debtorโs reference to public policy, finding that no evidence had been presented to show that enforcement of the court decision would breach Russian public policy (decision of August 29, 2025).
Consequently, a decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan was recognized and enforced in the Russian Federation.
ProArbitration.Ru
The public policy defense is an extremely powerful tool against the enforcement of foreign court decisions and/or foreign arbitral awards in Russia. It has been so for quite a while.
In Russia, there is no concept of international public policy. Instead, since 2022, a new concept has emerged โ the temporarily applied public policy doctrine. This concept has allowed Russian courts, often erroneously, to rely on presidential decrees on counter-sanctions measures to refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions and/or arbitral awards.
That said, it is worth noting that some courts and judges apply the public policy defense properly and do not allow debtors to evade their obligations. In a recent case (No. ะ76-43222/2024), a cassation court rejected the debtorโs reference to public policy, finding that no evidence had been presented to show that enforcement of the court decision would breach Russian public policy (decision of August 29, 2025).
Consequently, a decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan was recognized and enforced in the Russian Federation.
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฟ ๐บ๐ฟ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ .
On August 27, 2025, Russian courts recognized and enforced court decisions issued by the courts of:
- the Republic of Kazakhstan (Cases No. ะ47-22141/2024, ะ40-194088/2025) #Kazakhstan;
- the Republic of Uzbekistan (Case No. ะ53-22895/2025) #Uzbekistan.
ProArbitration.Ru
On August 27, 2025, Russian courts recognized and enforced court decisions issued by the courts of:
- the Republic of Kazakhstan (Cases No. ะ47-22141/2024, ะ40-194088/2025) #Kazakhstan;
- the Republic of Uzbekistan (Case No. ะ53-22895/2025) #Uzbekistan.
ProArbitration.Ru
๐ท๐บ๐ฆ๐ช๐บ๐ฟ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ .
In Case No. ะ53-35288/2024, the cassation court, by its decision of September 4, 2025, upheld a lower court ruling that recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Emirate of Dubai in Russia. #Dubai
In Case No. ะ41-49900/2025, the court of first instance, by its ruling of September 5, 2025, recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan in Russia. #Uzbekistan
ProArbitration.Ru
In Case No. ะ53-35288/2024, the cassation court, by its decision of September 4, 2025, upheld a lower court ruling that recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Emirate of Dubai in Russia. #Dubai
In Case No. ะ41-49900/2025, the court of first instance, by its ruling of September 5, 2025, recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan in Russia. #Uzbekistan
ProArbitration.Ru
๐1
My recent blog post on the validity of arbitration clauses in Russia since 2022 is now out.
https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/validity-of-arbitration-clauses-in-russia-since-2022/
ProArbitration.Ru
https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/validity-of-arbitration-clauses-in-russia-since-2022/
ProArbitration.Ru
Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Validity of Arbitration Clauses in Russia Since 2022
Since 1993, Russian arbitration law has supported arbitration and required courts to uphold and enforce arbitration clauses. However, in response to Western sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and entities, the legislation was amended, granting Russianโฆ
ProArbitration.Ru pinned ยซMy recent blog post on the validity of arbitration clauses in Russia since 2022 is now out. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/validity-of-arbitration-clauses-in-russia-since-2022/ ProArbitration.Ruยป
๐ท๐บ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ฏ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซโ๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ง ๐
๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
On September 8, 2025, a Russian court restrained a ๐ฉ๐ช Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investorโs investment claim against the Russian Federation. The court also prohibited the arbitrators from considering the case and set a penalty of EUR 7.5 billion for any breach of the court ruling (Case No. ะ40-92702/2025). As of today, only the operative part of the ruling has been published.
ProArbitration.Ru
On September 8, 2025, a Russian court restrained a ๐ฉ๐ช Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investorโs investment claim against the Russian Federation. The court also prohibited the arbitrators from considering the case and set a penalty of EUR 7.5 billion for any breach of the court ruling (Case No. ะ40-92702/2025). As of today, only the operative part of the ruling has been published.
ProArbitration.Ru
๐คฌ1
๐ท๐บ ๐ฆ๐ฟ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ . On September 10, 2025, the Russian Supreme Court refused a bid for reconsideration of Case ะ32-5059/2025, in which a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Azerbaijan was recognized and enforced in Russia. #Azerbaijan
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru