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

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞.

The Russian General Prosecutor brought a legal action seeking the recovery of RUB EUR 7.5 billion as the court fine set out in the court ruling dated September 9, 2025, issued against the arbitrators and the investor’s legal counsel in the Wintershall case.

The hearing is scheduled for November 20, 2025.

🔗 Case No А40-92702/2025.

ProArbitration.Ru

On November 11, 2025, Russian courts handed down three decisions dealing with the enforcement of foreign court decisions in Russia 🇷🇺.

🇧🇾 The Arbitrazh Court of the Smolensk Region refused to recognise and enforce a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Belarus, finding that the defendant had not been duly notified of the proceedings (Case No. A62-97/2025).

🇺🇿 The Arbitrazh Court of the Rostov Region recognised and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Case No. A53-28229/2025).

🇱🇻 The Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow refused to block the enforcement of a court decision issued by a court of the Republic of Latvia (Case No А40-300609/2024). The court rejected the applicant’s reference to Russia’s public policy, stating, surprisingly:

“By invoking a violation of the public policy of the Russian Federation, the applicant is in fact disagreeing with the conclusions of the foreign court and challenging that court’s assessment of the factual circumstances, which is contrary to the provisions of [a Russian procedural law].”

#Belarus #Uzbekistan #Latvia

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇱🇺 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 "𝐔𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲" 𝐚𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐋𝐮𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐠-𝐒𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚

In Case No. А60-40234/2025, three Italian 🇮🇹 individuals sought recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in their favour in arbitration under the auspices of the Luxembourg 🇱🇺 Chamber of Commerce (la Chambre de Commerce du Luxembourg) against a Russian 🇷🇺 individual, a Russian 🇷🇺 legal entity, and a Cypriot 🇨🇾 legal entity.

The Arbitrazh Court of the Sverdlovsk Region refused recognition and enforcement of the award in Russia. Some of the court’s reasons are rather interesting.

1. As follows from the court’s decision, during the arbitral proceedings the legal counsel for the Russian individual, the respondent, withdrew from providing legal services to him.

The respondent asked for an extension of the time to submit its submission. The arbitral tribunal refused the motion.

Taking into account that the arbitrators were from Belgium and Luxembourg, the court held that (a) there was a lack of equal treatment of the parties, and (b) a lack of impartiality and objectivity on the part of the arbitrators.

2. Taking into account that one of the respondents — the Russian legal entity — has a special status (a public-interest enterprise), the court concluded that the execution of the arbitral award and the possible payment by this Russian legal entity could be considered as financing an "unfriendly country."

The court decision dated November 12, 2025, could be appealed.

🔗 The case can be found at the link.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇦🇲 On November 14, 2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Armenia (Case No. А83-14679/2025). #Armenia

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺🇺🇿 In Case No. А82-11334/2024, the cassation court, by its decision dated November 14, 2025, upheld the lower court’s reasoning pursuant to which the decision of a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan was recognized and enforced in Russia. #Uzbekistan

ProArbitration.Ru

𝑹𝒆𝒔 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚.

The Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow, acting pursuant to Article 245.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code, by its decision dated November 17, 2025, denied recognition of a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿(Case No. A40-135952/2025).

The dispute between the parties, Russian 🇷🇺 and Uzbek 🇺🇿 legal entities, has a long history that dates back to 2009.

In Case No. А40-120756/2009, a Russian court concluded in 2015–2016 that the agreement between the parties was valid, whereas a court in the Republic of Uzbekistan reached the opposite conclusion in its 2025 decision.

In Case No. А40-135952/2025, the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow states that the decision in Case No. А40-120756/2009 has res judicata effect and, as a result, bars the recognition of the court decision issued by the court of the Republic of Uzbekistan in 2025.

P.S. Article 245.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code regulates the recognition of foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral awards that do not require enforcement. It provides that an interested party may submit objections to the recognition of a foreign court decision to a Russian state court, and, if those objections are upheld, recognition of the decision in Russia will be denied.

ProArbitration.Ru

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐒𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

In Case No A40-24249/2025, a Russian court restrained Google from pursuing U.S. litigation against the insolvency administrator of Google LLC (Russia), and imposed a court fine of RUB 1 billion for any breach of the Anti-Suit Injunction.

On November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of Russia declined to reconsider the case.

ProArbitration.Ru

𝐃𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐋𝐮𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐨𝐲 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞

The Constitutional Court of Russia has once again—now for the third time—been asked to consider whether the Lugovoy Law (which allows courts to assert exclusive jurisdiction over commercial disputes involving sanctioned Russian parties) is compatible with the Constitution of Russia. This time, the complaint has been brought by Deutsche Bank.

ProArbitration.Ru