🇬🇧 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
👍1
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 Russian…
ProArbitration.Ru pinned «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
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
🤬1
🇷🇺 🇦🇿 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
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
ProArbitration.Ru
👍1
⚖ 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
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
❤2
🇷🇺 🇰🇷 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
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
❤1
🇷🇺 ✈ ⚖ 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
🔗 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
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
❤2
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…
🇷🇺 The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation has appealed the court order that restrained a 🇩🇪 Germany-based investor from pursuing an investment claim against the Russian Federation.
The case will be considered by a cassation court on October 16, 2025.
ProArbitration.Ru
The case will be considered by a cassation court on October 16, 2025.
ProArbitration.Ru
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…
🇷🇺 The Russian Supreme Court has refused a bid to reconsider Case No.
As a result, Russian courts cannot invoke the public policy defense to deny recognition of foreign court decisions originating from the Republic of Azerbaijan 🇦🇿, the Republic of Armenia 🇦🇲, the Republic of Belarus 🇧🇾, the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿, the Kyrgyz Republic 🇰🇬, the Republic of Tajikistan 🇹🇯, Turkmenistan 🇹🇲, or the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿.
ProArbitration.Ru
А56-6573/2025. This means that the cassation court’s position — according to which the Commonwealth of Independent States Agreement dated March 20, 1992 prevails over the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code — has been upheld.As a result, Russian courts cannot invoke the public policy defense to deny recognition of foreign court decisions originating from the Republic of Azerbaijan 🇦🇿, the Republic of Armenia 🇦🇲, the Republic of Belarus 🇧🇾, the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿, the Kyrgyz Republic 🇰🇬, the Republic of Tajikistan 🇹🇯, Turkmenistan 🇹🇲, or the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿.
ProArbitration.Ru
❤1
Forwarded from Михаил Самойлов
📚 Подготовили очередной Обзор судебной практики по трансграничным спорам (общие вопросы арбитража, санкции, применение норм иностранного права, признание иностранных судебных/арбитражных решений, морское право).
Впервые приведена практика не только российских судов 🇷🇺, но и судов Республики Беларусь 🇧🇾 и Республики Узбекистан 🇺🇿. Пока практики из этих стран не так много, но и имеющаяся практика дает определенные представление о том, как суды Республики Беларусь и Республики Узбекистан, скорее всего, будут разрешать вопросы, связанные с исключительной подсудностью и признанием российских арбитражных решений. На сколько мне известно, такая практика публикуется в России впервые.
За 6 лет работы над Обзором, пожалуй, впервые, отмечаем резкий спад дел о признании иностранных арбитражных решений в России.
📎 Русская версия Обзора за 1-е полугодие 2025 г. доступна по ссылке.
Английская - скоро.
Впервые приведена практика не только российских судов 🇷🇺, но и судов Республики Беларусь 🇧🇾 и Республики Узбекистан 🇺🇿. Пока практики из этих стран не так много, но и имеющаяся практика дает определенные представление о том, как суды Республики Беларусь и Республики Узбекистан, скорее всего, будут разрешать вопросы, связанные с исключительной подсудностью и признанием российских арбитражных решений. На сколько мне известно, такая практика публикуется в России впервые.
За 6 лет работы над Обзором, пожалуй, впервые, отмечаем резкий спад дел о признании иностранных арбитражных решений в России.
📎 Русская версия Обзора за 1-е полугодие 2025 г. доступна по ссылке.
Английская - скоро.
❤2
If certain frozen funds or economic resources must be released “for the purposes of paying a roll fee and a flat-rate contribution which must be paid, pursuant to national law, upon lodging a court action against a national measure implementing that regulation” (see ECLI:EU:C:2025:696), should frozen funds likewise be released for the commencement of arbitration proceedings? If so, for what kind of proceedings?
ProArbitration.Ru
ProArbitration.Ru
❤1
Михаил Самойлов
📚 Подготовили очередной Обзор судебной практики по трансграничным спорам (общие вопросы арбитража, санкции, применение норм иностранного права, признание иностранных судебных/арбитражных решений, морское право). Впервые приведена практика не только российских…
Желающие к нам присоединиться, добро пожаловать -
https://forms.yandex.ru/u/68ea412790fa7b4056e30af4
Форма активна до 22.10.2025 23:59 мск.
https://forms.yandex.ru/u/68ea412790fa7b4056e30af4
Форма активна до 22.10.2025 23:59 мск.
𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 🇷🇺
In Case No. А53-354/2025, a cassation court upheld a lower court’s decision refusing to recognize and enforce in Russia 🇷🇺 a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Moldova 🇲🇩 on the grounds that the defendant had not been properly served with notice of the legal proceedings.
In Cases No. А40-195203/2025 and А40-154875/2025, decisions issued by courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 and the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿 were recognized and enforced in Russia 🇷🇺 by the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow.
ProArbitration.Ru
In Case No. А53-354/2025, a cassation court upheld a lower court’s decision refusing to recognize and enforce in Russia 🇷🇺 a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Moldova 🇲🇩 on the grounds that the defendant had not been properly served with notice of the legal proceedings.
In Cases No. А40-195203/2025 and А40-154875/2025, decisions issued by courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 and the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿 were recognized and enforced in Russia 🇷🇺 by the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow.
ProArbitration.Ru
❤2👍1