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.Ruโ๏ธ
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Courts have recognized and enforced:
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐ฅ2
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.Ruโ๏ธ
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐2
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 ะ56-84230/2025).
ProArbitration.Ruโ๏ธ
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐1
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐1
Law dated December 29, 2025, No. 8-FKZ.pdf
63.4 KB
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐1
Ministry of Justiceโs 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 Justiceโs registry, in Russian, is attached.
ProArbitration.Ruโ
The same status has also been granted to HKIAC, VIAC, SIAC, ICC, and CRCICA.
The Ministry of Justiceโs registry, in Russian, is attached.
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐ฅ1
In connection with a bankruptcy/insolvency proceeding involving a Russian citizen (the โDebtorโ), a Russian state court issued a letter rogatory request (order dated February 4, 2025) seeking information from a U.S. bank regarding the Debtorโs 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.
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐ฅ1
Order - 24-12-2025.pdf
118.6 KB
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. ะ40-231304/2025). 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
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐1
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
KSRFDecision885005.pdf
226.7 KB
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
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐ท๐บ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐
๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ: ๐
๐๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐โ๐๐, ๐๐๐๐
๐ฐ๐ฟ In Case No. ะ76-498/2026, a Russian court recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
๐บ๐ฟ 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.
โ ๏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 ๐บ๐ฟ have 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.Ruโ๏ธ
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
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."
๐ The Cyprus decision is available at the following link.
P.S. The post in Russian is available here.
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
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 courtโs decision and denied the claimantโs application, holding that interim measures are not enforceable in Russia (decision of 17 February 2026, Case No. A14-12983/2024).
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐1
In Case No. ะ56-23597/2023 concerning the insolvency (bankruptcy) of a Russian citizen, an appellate court confirmed a lower court decision dated August 5, 2025, recognizing a court decision issued by a court in Antwerp, the Kingdom of Belgium.
It is worth noting that the lower court decision dated August 5, 2025, was based on both the principle of international comity and the principle of reciprocity, since the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Belgium have no international treaty on the recognition and enforcement of court decisions. The court stated in its decision dated August 5, 2025:
"the principle of reciprocity presupposes mutual respect by the courts of different states for the outcomes of each otherโs activities. Accordingly, it may be concluded that even in the absence of an international treaty between the Russian Federation and the state whose court judgment is sought to be recognized and enforced before a Russian court, such a foreign judgment is subject to enforcement on the basis of the principles of reciprocity and international comity."
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
In Case No A56-114163/2025, a Russian court refused to issue an order for the disclosure of customs documents in support of a Russian-seated arbitration because these documents contain legally protected information.
ProArbitration.Ruโ
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
OJ_C_202600930_EN_TXT.pdf
441.6 KB
Whether unilateral sanctions fall within the โpublic policyโ exception under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention?
ProArbitration.Ruโ
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
In Case C-802/24, the Advocate General delivered his Opinion on 26 February 2026. He considers that Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 does not preclude recourse to arbitration in respect of a claim that cannot be satisfied within the meaning of that provision. However, satisfaction must in fact be unobtainable, and any arbitral award must remain subject to judicial review in order to ensure compliance with EU public policy.
The full Opinion is available at the following link - https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2024/C-0802-24-00000000RP-01-P-01/CONCL/316861-EN-1-html
ProArbitration.Ruโ
The full Opinion is available at the following link - https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2024/C-0802-24-00000000RP-01-P-01/CONCL/316861-EN-1-html
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
ะ19-1350/2026).ะ15-4529/2025).ะ40-118932/2025).ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation has brought a legal action before a Russian court seeking the lifelong disqualification of Mr. Charles Poncet as an arbitrator and a ban preventing Mr. Charles Poncet from acting as an arbitrator in all arbitral institutions that directly or indirectly consider cases against the Russian Federation.
The case (No ะ40-57198/26-19-530) is scheduled to be heard on April 16, 2026.
ProArbitration.Ru
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
โค1