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 — tertiary jurisdiction — 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 jurisdiction—i.e., a State in which a court may issue injunctions against arbitral proceedings seated elsewhere.

📑 The Delhi High Court’s decision dated July 25, 2025 is available at the following link - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59625072025IA97242025_170255.pdf

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇨🇭 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

🇷🇺 🇨🇳 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮

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 People’s 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 People’s 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 Party’s 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 court’s 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

Where a Russian party is subject to a foreign court’s 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. А21-12793/2023).

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇰🇿 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

In Case No. А42-5661/2025, a court of first instance followed the Russian Supreme Court's approach (Case No. А45-19015/2023) and concluded that arbitrators from the Netherlands 🇳🇱 and Singapore 🇸🇬 lacked impartiality and objectivity, as these countries are considered “unfriendly” to Russia 🇷🇺.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇬🇧 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/


🇫🇷 Déclaration du ministère des Affaires étrangères de Russie concernant la sortie de la Fédération de Russie de la procédure d'arbitrage sur "l'incident de Kertch" du 25 novembre 2018

https://mid.ru/fr/foreign_policy/news/2042453/

ProArbitration.Ru

𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭 𝐈𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥

While one arbitrazh cassation court ruled that an international treaty—the CIS Agreement of March 20, 1992—prevails over domestic procedural law (Case No. А56-6573/2025), another cassation court reached the opposite conclusion.

In Case No. А41-51293/2024, 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 🇰🇿 . #Kazakhstan

P.S. There are 10 arbitrazh cassation (district) courts in Russia 🇷🇺 , 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 court’s order has been appealed.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺🇰🇿 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲

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 – 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. А76-43222/2024), a cassation court rejected the debtor’s 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

🇷🇺 🇰🇿 🇺🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠.

On August 27, 2025, Russian courts recognized and enforced court decisions issued by the courts of:

- the Republic of Kazakhstan (Cases No. А47-22141/2024, А40-194088/2025) #Kazakhstan;

- the Republic of Uzbekistan (Case No. А53-22895/2025) #Uzbekistan.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺🇦🇪🇺🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠.

In Case No. А53-35288/2024, 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. А41-49900/2025, 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

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

🇷🇺 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫’𝐬 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

On September 8, 2025, a Russian court restrained a 🇩🇪 Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investor’s 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. А40-92702/2025). As of today, only the operative part of the ruling has been published.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇦🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠. On September 10, 2025, the Russian Supreme Court refused a bid for reconsideration of Case А32-5059/2025, in which a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Azerbaijan was recognized and enforced in Russia. #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇦🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠. On September 11, 2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced a decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Russia (Case No. А15-4529/2025). #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru

⚖ 𝗡𝗼 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀? 𝗡𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺: 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

In Case No. А43-27728/2024, a saga concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in a Russian-seated arbitration, a 🇨🇭 Swiss-based company sought enforcement of the award rendered in its favor. The case was considered by the courts multiple times, and on September 11, 2025, the cassation court rendered its decision in favor of the Swiss-based company, concluding as follows:

🟢 The absence of a bank account in Russia is not a barrier to the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in favor of a foreign company, even if the company is domiciled in an “unfriendly” jurisdiction.

🟢 The fact that a company is domiciled in Switzerland does not, by itself, demonstrate that enforcement of the arbitral award would violate the fundamental principles of the economic, political, or legal system of the Russian Federation.

🟢 If a commercial transaction does not fall under the scope of the Russian presidential decrees on counter-sanctions measures, these decrees are not applicable and cannot serve as legal grounds to oppose enforcement.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇰🇷 𝗔 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗞𝗖𝗔𝗕 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

A claimant, a company domiciled in the Republic of Korea, brought a legal action for debt recovery against a respondent, a Russian company, while the contract contained an arbitration clause providing for “an arbitration court at the claimant’s place of location.”

The wording “an arbitration court” might, in Russia, be interpreted as a reference to a state commercial court rather than to arbitration. Even if the claimant understood it that way, it still remains unclear why the Russian court was chosen, whereas the claimant’s place of location is in the Republic of Korea.

The respondent objected to the litigation and pointed out that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration.

The court emphasized that since the claimant is domiciled in the Republic of Korea, it must have known that there are no “arbitration courts” as state courts in the Republic of Korea. There is only one arbitral institution — the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

Some errors in the name of the adjudicating body were made in the arbitration clause; however, they did not in themselves lead to the invalidity of the arbitration clause, the court concluded.

Thus, the court left the statement of claim without consideration and referred the parties to arbitration.

The court’s ruling of September 16, 2025, in Case No. А51-22733/2024 may be appealed.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 ✈ ⚖ Proceedings instituted by the Russian Federation against the Commonwealth of Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 18 September 2025.

🔗 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/201

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝟭𝟴𝟮𝟮).

Two centuries ago, Emperor Alexander I of Russia acted as arbitrator in the dispute between the United States and the Great Britain concerning the interpretation of Article I of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814. Among the advisers who assisted the Emperor in this matter were Mikhail Speransky and Count Ioannis Kapodistrias (John Capodistrias).

According to Speransky’s own note, he prepared and transmitted to Kapodistrias a memorandum entitled Mémoire sur l’interprétation de l’article du Traité de Gand.

To date, Speransky’s memorandum has neither been published nor identified in Russian archival collections. It is likely that Kapodistrias took the document with him when he departed from Russia. The present location of the memorandum therefore remains unknown.

A research question arises as to whether any memoirs, published works, or archival collections of Kapodistrias in Greek or French exist that shed light on Speransky’s memorandum and its existence.

If anyone has seen the Speransky’s memorandum or knows something about it, I would be very grateful if you could let me know.

ProArbitration.Ru