⚖ 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

🇷🇺 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 Russian Supreme Court has refused a bid to reconsider Case No. 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

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

Желающие к нам присоединиться, добро пожаловать -

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

𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝘃𝘀. 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲. In Case No. А40-189091/2025, by an order dated October 15, 2025, a Russian court granted the application of Google LLC (Russia) and restrained Google Ireland Limited from proceeding with AAA arbitration. The court also imposed a fine of RUB 65 billion (approximately USD 820 million) for each instance of non-compliance with its order.

ProArbitration.Ru

IBA membership as a basis for bias.

In Case No. А40-92702/2025, the cassation court, on the one hand, upheld the lower court’s ruling restraining a Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investor’s investment claim against the Russian Federation; on the other hand, it stated that the presiding arbitrator, being a member of the International Bar Association (IBA)—and taking into account the IBA’s statements critical of Russia—is unable to adjudicate the dispute impartially and objectively.

P.S. The cassation court’s 23-page decision, dated October 17, 2025, is worth reading in full. 📄

ProArbitration.Ru

𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 (𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟑–𝟐𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓).

In Case No. А40-14438/2025, the cassation court, by its decision dated October 13, 2025, upheld a lower court’s decision recognizing and enforcing in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Belarus. #Belarus

In Case No. А03-15156/2025, the court, by its decision dated October 13, 2025, recognized and enforced in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. #Kazakhstan

In Case No. А46-13736/2025, the court, by its decision dated October 17, 2025, recognized and enforced in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. #Kyrgyzstan

ProArbitration.Ru

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀-𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱.

In Case No. А76-26020/2025, the court held that where a commercial transaction lies outside the scope of Russian counter-sanctions measures, sanctions cannot serve as a ground for casting doubt on the arbitral award.

In 2019, a Russian company (the Seller/Debtor) and an Italian company (the Buyer/Assignor) entered into a contract. The Buyer paid USD 90,851.73 as an advance payment.

In 2024, the Assignor and another Russian company (the Assignee/Creditor) entered into an assignment agreement under which the Assignor transferred to the Assignee the right to claim from the Seller the advance payment under the contract, in the amount of USD 90,851.73.

In 2025, an arbitral tribunal seated in Moscow, Russia, issued an award in favour of the Creditor and ordered the Debtor to pay the Creditor USD 90,851.73, along with fines and arbitration fees.

The Creditor sought enforcement of the arbitral award, while the Debtor opposed it, relying on the following grounds: (1) the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause; and (2) enforcement would be contrary to the temporary public policy of the Russian Federation, as the arbitral award allegedly violated Russian counter-sanctions measures established by presidential decrees.

The court dismised both objections.

(1) The arbitration clause was broadly worded and imposed no limits on the types of disputes that could be brought before arbitration.

(2) Neither the Buyer/Assignor nor the 2019 contract was subject to Russian counter-sanctions measures. The commercial transactions between the Seller and the Buyer had a genuine economic nature, and the court found no “red flags” indicating sham transactions.

To conclude, Case No. А76-26020/2025 is not the first instance in which an award debtor has sought to cast doubt on an arbitral award by invoking sanctions. The outcome of such challenges depends on numerous factors, and in this case, those factors were not satisfied.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 "𝐔𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲" 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

In Case No. A82-19719/2025, the award debtor objected to the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in a Moscow-seated arbitration, arguing that the award creditor was domiciled in Bulgaria 🇧🇬 — a country considered "unfriendly" to Russia — and therefore, enforcement should be denied under Russian counter-sanctions measures.

The court of first instance by decision dated October 10, 2025 rejected this argument, holding that the mere fact that a party to the arbitration is domiciled in a country deemed "unfriendly" to Russia does not, by itself, preclude the enforcement of the arbitral award.

It is worth noting that, earlier in this case, the court had refused enforcement by a decision dated April 2, 2025, referring specifically to Russian counter-sanctions measures. However, the cassation court overturned that decision and remanded the case for reconsideration.

P.S. The same approach — that domiciliation in a country deemed “unfriendly” to Russia does not, by itself, preclude the enforcement of an arbitral award — was taken in relation to an award debtor domiciled in Switzerland 🇨🇭 (see Case No. А43-27728/2024).

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇰🇿 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮–𝗞𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗸𝗵𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲.

In Case No A27-15448/2025, a Russian company sought an anti-suit injunction, requesting the court to restrain a Kazakh company from pursuing legal action before a court in the Republic of Kazakhstan against the Russian entity. The Russian court dismissed the motion on the following grounds:

1️⃣ The Republic of Kazakhstan is not considered an “unfriendly” state under Russian law.
2️⃣ The Russian company has the ability to present its case before a Kazakh court, including the option to submit documents via e-mail.
3️⃣ The Russian company may participate in proceedings before a Kazakh court via a messenger application.
4️⃣ There are no restrictions on Russian citizens traveling to Kazakhstan.

The court ruling in Case No A27-15448/2025 may be appealed.

Case No. A27-15448/2025 contrasts with Case No. A41-51293/2024, in which the Russian courts disregarded a litigation clause in favor of a Kazakh court because the sanctioned Russian company faced obstacles in accessing justice—specifically, its inability to pay legal fees and obtain legal assistance. Although the reasoning in that case may appear weak, the approach could still find support from the Supreme Court if it decides not to reconsider the case.

ProArbitration.Ru

The Russian Supreme Court has refused a bid seeking reconsideration of Case No. А40-211260/2024, in which the motion for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award was granted despite the debtor’s argument that enforcement would violate public policy, as the assignment agreement—the basis of the claim before the tribunal—allegedly breached Russian counter-sanctions measures under the Russian Presidential decrees.

ProArbitration.Ru

📚 Applications now open for the LL.M. in International Dispute Settlement (MIDS) – Academic Year 2026–27 - https://mids.ch/posts/2025-10-30-applications-now-open-for-the-llm-in-international-dispute-settlement-mids-academic-year-202627/

ProArbitration.Ru

⚖ The Cassation Court, by its decision dated October 27, 2025, in Case No. А12-22543/2022, confirms that a 🇨🇳 Chinese company, the claimant, may successfully rely on the “Lugovoy Act” against a 🇷🇺 Russian company and, consequently, disregards an LCIA arbitration clause.

ProArbitration.Ru

The “Lugovoy Act” has survived a second constitutional review.

The Russian Constitutional Court has published its ruling dated October 14, 2025, in which the applicant argued that articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Procedural Code, which establish the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts over disputes involving unilateral sanctions, are unconstitutional insofar as these articles do not authorize Russian courts to grant anti-enforcement injunctions. The Court dismissed the application.

📄 Ruling No. 2615-O dated October 14, 2025, in Russian, can be found at the link.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺🇧🇾 On 5–6 November 2025, a Russian court recognised and enforced:

(a) an arbitral award rendered by the International Arbitration Court at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Case No. А40-237335/25);

(b) a court decision issued by a court of the Republic of Belarus (Case No. А40-237389/25). #Belarus

ProArbitration.Ru