ProArbitration.Ru
144 subscribers
4 photos
17 files
180 links
Litigation and arbitration in Russia.

by Mikhail Samoylov, LL.M. (MIDS).

๐Ÿ“จ @MSMContact_bot
Download Telegram
๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ž๐ ๐š ๐†๐จ๐จ๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐œ๐š๐ฌ๐ฌ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ž๐ค๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š๐ง ๐€๐ง๐ญ๐ข-๐’๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ง๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.

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
๐ƒ๐ž๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฌ๐œ๐ก๐ž ๐๐š๐ง๐ค ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ ๐“๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐ ๐‹๐ฎ๐ ๐จ๐ฏ๐จ๐ฒ ๐‹๐š๐ฐ ๐‚๐ก๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ž๐ง๐ ๐ž

The Constitutional Court of Russia has once againโ€”now for the third timeโ€”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
REVIEW_OF_CASE_LAW_ON_CROSS_BORDER_LITIGATION_IN_RUSSIA_BELARUS.pdf
6.5 MB
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡พ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฟ The RAA Review of case law on cross-border litigation in Russia, Belarus, and Uzbekistan for the first half of 2025 has been published.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
โค1
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บCourt Updates on Enforcement in Russia (November 24 โ€“ December 7)

๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡พA court has recognized and enforced an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Case No. A68-13217/2025). #Belarus

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฟA court has refused to recognize and enforce a court decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Case No. A07-31109/2025). The court found that the Russian company, a party against whom the court decision was made, was not properly informed about the court proceedings before the court of the Republic of Uzbekistan. #Uzbekistan

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฒ๐Ÿ‡ณ ๐—” ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ฎ ๐— ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด๐—ผ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—Ÿ๐˜‚๐—ด๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ผ๐˜† ๐—”๐—ฐ๐˜ ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜€๐—ผ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ.

In Case No A56-97986/2025, the claimant, a Russian sanctioned legal entity, brought a legal action against the respondent, a Mongolian legal entity, before a Russian court. The claimant argued that the court had exclusive jurisdiction based on Art. 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code.

The court refused to entertain jurisdiction, and the appellate court confirmed this refusal.

The courts held that Mongolia is neither an "unfriendly" country nor has it enacted restrictive measures against Russian entities. Therefore, the criteria for applying Art. 248.1 were not met.

To be continued...

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‘1
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—จ๐—ฝ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—˜๐—ป๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฎ (๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐Ÿณโ€“๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฎ, ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฑ)

Courts have recognized and enforced:

๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡พ an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Case No. ะ40-280097/2025) #Belarus; and

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ฟ a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Case No. ะ76-36796/2025). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ”ฅ1
The Russian Central Bank has brought a legal action against Euroclear Bank S.A. before a Russian court, seeking to recover more than 200 billion euros. The hearing is scheduled for January 16, 2026. Case No. A40-345157/2025.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—จ๐—ฝ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—˜๐—ป๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฎ (๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฑโ€“๐Ÿญ๐Ÿต, ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฑ)

Courts have recognized and enforced:

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฟ a Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC) award (Case No. ะ40-229097/2025). This is the first time such an award has been recognized in Russia; #Uzbekistan

๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡พ an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Belarusian Universal Commodity Exchange (Case No. ะ40-280097/2025). #Belarus

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ฟ A cassation court confirmed a lower court decision on the recognition and enforcement of a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Case No. ะ40-154875/2025). #Kazakhstan.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ”ฅ2
A Latvian court has requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of EU law, specifically on whether EU sanctions fall within the scope of Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. Case C-701/25.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‘2
A Russian court refused to enforce a domestic arbitral award because it was issued after the award debtor had entered bankruptcy. In the case at hand, the award was issued on May 20, 2025, whereas the bankruptcy proceedings were opened on July 18, 2024 (Case No ะ56-84230/2025).

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‘1
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—จ๐—ฝ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—˜๐—ป๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฎ (๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ-๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฒ, ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฑ)

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ฟA Russian court has recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Case No. A40-248600/2025). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‘1
Law dated December 29, 2025, No. 8-FKZ.pdf
63.4 KB
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ According to a law published today, Russia does not recognise judgements issued by international criminal courts if the jurisdiction of such a court is not based on an international treaty to which Russia is a party, nor on Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ณ(see Federal Constitutional Law dated December 29, 2025, No. 8-FKZ).

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‘1
Ministry of Justiceโ€™s registry.pdf
70.8 KB
On 26 December 2025, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) was registered as a Permanent Arbitral Institution by the Russian Ministry of Justice, enabling it to administer international commercial arbitrations seated in Russia and certain corporate disputes.

The same status has also been granted to HKIAC, VIAC, SIAC, ICC, and CRCICA.

The Ministry of Justiceโ€™s registry, in Russian, is attached.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ”ฅ1
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐—จ.๐—ฆ. ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—š๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€ ๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—”๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜

In connection with a bankruptcy/insolvency proceeding involving a Russian citizen (the โ€œDebtorโ€), a Russian state court issued a letter rogatory request (order dated February 4, 2025) seeking information from a U.S. bank regarding the Debtorโ€™s account history, assets, loans, and other financial information.

Pursuant to this request, the U.S. Government filed an application dated September 3, 2025, requesting that a U.S. court grant judicial assistance.

On September 25, 2025, the U.S. court granted the requested judicial assistance.

๐Ÿ”—

๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ The Russian court case is available at the following link.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The U.S. court case is available at the following link.

ProArbitration.Ru
โœˆ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ”ฅ1
Order - 24-12-2025.pdf
118.6 KB
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ ๐ˆ๐ง๐๐ข๐š๐ง ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐„๐”๐‘ ๐Ÿ‘๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฅ๐ข๐ž๐Ÿ ๐ข๐ง ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š-๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ค๐ž๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž ๐›๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐›๐ฒ ๐š ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š๐ง ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ

On 5 December 2025, a Russian court handed down a decision ordering an Italian entity and its Russian subsidiary to pay RUB 171 billion to the Russian entity (see Case No. ะ40-231304/2025). Despite the fact that the court decision has not attained finality, as all parties have filed appeals, the Russian entity commenced proceedings under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India), seeking interim relief.

On 24 December 2025, the High Court of Bombay did not pass any orders. Subsequently, by an order dated 12 January 2026, as indicated by published reports, the Court granted interim measures requiring the Italian company to maintain the status quo in relation to its Indian assets, which are understood to be valued at over EUR 300 million.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‘1
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š ๐„๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐”๐ฉ๐๐š๐ญ๐ž: ๐‰๐š๐ง๐ฎ๐š๐ซ๐ฒ ๐Ÿ๐Ÿโ€“๐Ÿ‘๐ŸŽ, ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ”

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ฟ In Case No. ะ76-38020/2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฟ In Case No. ะ32-46804/2025, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan because the debtor was not duly served with notice of the proceedings before the foreign court.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
KSRFDecision885005.pdf
226.7 KB
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐‹๐ฎ๐ ๐จ๐ฏ๐จ๐ฒ ๐‹๐š๐ฐ ๐’๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž๐ฌ ๐š ๐“๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐ ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐‚๐ก๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ž๐ง๐ ๐ž

The Lugovoy Law has survived a third attempt at constitutional review. The Russian Constitutional Court refused to consider an application brought by Deutsche Bank. The applicant was of the opinion that Art. 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Code, granting Russian courts the power to restrain foreign parties from commencing and/or continuing foreign litigation proceedings and/or arbitration outside of Russia, is unconstitutional. By its Ruling dated December 25, 2025 (published today), the Russian Constitutional Court refused to consider the application.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐‘๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ง๐ ๐„๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐…๐จ๐ซ๐ž๐ข๐ ๐ง ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ƒ๐ž๐œ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ: ๐…๐ž๐›๐ซ๐ฎ๐š๐ซ๐ฒ ๐Ÿโ€“๐Ÿ๐Ÿ‘, ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ”

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ฟ In Case No. ะ76-498/2026, a Russian court recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฟ In Case No. A07-31108/2025, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan because the debtor had not been duly served with notice of the proceedings before the foreign court.

โš ๏ธ P.S. Case No. A07-31108/2025 is the second case this year in which recognition and enforcement of decisions issued by courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฟhave been refused because debtors were not duly served with notice of the proceedings before foreign courts. The first case was No. A32-46804/2025; see here.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡พ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐‚๐ฒ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฏ๐จ๐ค๐ž๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐›๐ฅ๐ข๐œ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐œ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ง๐ฒ ๐„๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐‹๐‚๐ˆ๐€ ๐€๐ฐ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐€๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š๐ง ๐๐š๐ง๐ค๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ญ๐œ๐ฒ.

The case concerns an attempt to recognise and enforce a USD 82 million LCIA award in Cyprus against the Ananiev brothers, former Russian bankers. Since 2019 and 2022 respectively, Alexey and Dmitry have been subject to bankruptcy proceedings in Russia.

A Cyprus court refused recognition and enforcement of the LCIA award because such recognition would be in conflict with Russian bankruptcy proceedings. The reasons of the Cyprus court are as follows (a machine translation from the Greek language into the English language):

"It is a fact that any issuance of the requested decrees will result in the bypassing of the priority of the creditors of the Respondent. I consider that the interests of the body of creditors prevail over the interests of the Applicants who, with the present application, are attempting to collect their receivables to the detriment of the remaining creditors."

"The disregard of the interests of creditors for the benefit of the Applicants is something that is clearly contrary to Cypriot public order."

๐Ÿ“ƒ The Cyprus decision is available at the following link.

P.S. The post in Russian is available here.

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ๏ธ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ฟ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š๐ง ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐‘๐ž๐Ÿ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐‘๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ง๐ ๐„๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐Š๐š๐ณ๐š๐ค๐ก ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ-๐Ž๐ซ๐๐ž๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ ๐Œ๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐€๐ข๐ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐€๐ซ๐›๐ข๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง

A court in Kazakhstan granted interim measures in support of an arbitration seated in Kazakhstan. The claimant applied to a Russian court for recognition and enforcement of that order. The first-instance court granted the application. The cassation court overturned the first-instance courtโ€™s decision and denied the claimantโ€™s application, holding that interim measures are not enforceable in Russia (decision of 17 February 2026, Case No. A14-12983/2024).

ProArbitration.Ru โœˆ
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM