🇷🇺 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟏𝟑–𝟐𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

🇺🇿 In Case No. А45-2768/2024, a cassation court confirmed the lower court decision recognizing and enforcing a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

🇺🇿 In Case No. А76-48510/2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺🇧🇪 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚: 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬

In Case No. А56-23597/2023 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 other’s 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."

🔗 The appeal court decision dated 14 February 2026 can be found at the following link, and the first-instance court decision dated 5 August 2025 can be found at the following link. All decisions are in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

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.Ru ✈

Whether unilateral sanctions fall within the ‘public policy’ exception under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention?

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

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.Ru ✈

🇷🇺 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐔𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞: 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎–𝟐𝟕, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

🇰🇿 A court refused to recognize and enforce in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan — the debtor was not duly served with notice of the proceedings before the Kazakh court (decision of 24 February 2026, Case No. А19-1350/2026).

🇦🇿 A cassation court confirmed a lower court decision on the recognition and enforcement of a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Azerbaijan (decision of 25 February 2026, Case No. А15-4529/2025).

🇰🇿 A court recognized and enforced an SCC award issued against a Kazakh bank (decision of 20 February 2026, Case No. А40-118932/2025).

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗣𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘁

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 А40-57198/26-19-530) is scheduled to be heard on April 16, 2026.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟮–𝟭𝟯, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

🇰🇿 Russian courts recognized and enforced two decisions issued by courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Case No. A46-2266/2026, decision dated 11 March 2026; Case No. A56-112332/2025, decision dated 12 March 2026).

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 From March 13 to 27, 2026, Russian courts recognized and enforced decisions issued by courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Cases Nos. A53-36344/2025, A40-317586/2025, and A72-14559/2025).

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿🇧🇾 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲. From 27 March to 10 April 2026, Russian courts recognized and enforced decisions issued by courts in the Republic of Kazakhstan (Case Nos. A27-29886/2025, A76-161/2026, and A60-74989/2025) and the Republic of Belarus (Case No. A40-54946/2026).

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

The Poncet case, where Russia’s state prosecutor is seeking to impose a lifetime ban on Charles Poncet as an arbitrator, has been postponed until November 2, 2026.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗖𝗜𝗔 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲; 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱.

On August 1, 2025, a Russian court of general jurisdiction granted interim measures freezing assets in support of an LCIA arbitration. By decision dated October 20, 2025, the court of appeal upheld the interim measures. However, by decision dated February 17, 2026, a cassation court overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter to the court of appeal for reconsideration.

🔗 Follow the link to access the cassation court’s decision (in Russian) - https://2kas.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_num=1&name_op=doc&number=18168537&delo_id=2800001&new=2800001&text_number=1

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑰𝑪𝑪 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑫𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑾𝒊𝒏: $9𝑴 𝑹𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒂

A Russian entity lost an ICC arbitration, as EU sanctions prevented the repayment of an advance payment. However, it subsequently succeeded in resisting recognition of the ICC award in Russia (see case No. А42-5661/2025) and then initiated proceedings before a Russian court. The court ultimately granted the claim, ordering German and Latvian companies to repay nearly $9 million in advance payments to the Russian entity (see case No. А42-2551/2025).

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐂𝐈𝐀 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

On August 1, 2025, a Russian court of general jurisdiction granted interim measures freezing assets in support of an LCIA arbitration. By decision dated October 20, 2025, a court of appeal upheld those interim measures. However, by decision dated February 17, 2026, a cassation court overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter to the court of appeal for reconsideration.

Upon reconsideration, on April 29, 2026, the court of appeal overturned the interim measures granted in support of the LCIA arbitration. The court held, on the one hand, that the motion for interim measures had not been supported by sufficient evidence demonstrating the necessity and proportionality of the requested relief. On the other hand, in refusing to grant interim measures, the court noted that the seat of arbitration is located in an "unfriendly" country.

🔗 Here is a link to the appellate court decision.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺🇦🇹 Considering Case No. А22-1431/2016 concerning the bankruptcy of an individual, a Russian court, by its decision dated 21 April 2026, guided by the principle of reciprocity, recognized and enforced a judgment issued by the Landesgericht Innsbruck of the Republic of Austria.

🔗 Follow the link to access the decision in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🤖 It seems that Case No. A27-7831/2025 is the first case in Russia in which a defendant was fined for contempt of court after citing, in its cassation appeal, cases that never existed — likely AI-generated. By its decision of 14 May 2026, the court imposed a fine of 50,000 Russian rubles on the defendant for contempt of court. 🤎

Follow the link to access the decision in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

If the the AIFC Court in its decision on 15 May 2026 said some words on ratione materiae, why the the AIFC Court was slient on ratione personae, or did I missing something?

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

The AIFC Court has no jurisdiction over the recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Gazprom, says the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Follow the link to read the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s responses to Zakon.kz in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

Another AIFC judgment, and once again the issue concerns the competence of the AIFC Court to enforce foreign arbitral awards. The judgment demonstrates that there is ongoing debate on this issue, but it appears to take a firm position that the AIFC Court has no jurisdiction over the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Paragraph 4.14 appears particularly important for understanding the point:

When parties agree to arbitrate under the auspices of any other institution (for example, the ICC, as in the present case) or agree to an ad hoc arbitration, they do not thereby agree to accept the jurisdiction of the AIFC Court. 

See: Judgment dated 27 May 2026 in Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0066 (link).

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

In the recent Case No. А21-4252/2026 (RUSAL v. OWH SE i.L.), a Russian court held that either party to an arbitration — whether the award creditor or the award debtor — may seek recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award before a court.

I wonder whether this approach is inconsistent with the 1958 New York Convention, or whether it falls within Article IV, given that the provision refers only to “the party applying” for recognition and enforcement. Article IV does not expressly state that an award debtor is precluded from seeking recognition of the award. Nor, as far as I am aware, does the commentary say so.

🔗 Follow the link to read the 21-page judgment dated 28 May 2026 in Case No. А21-4252/2026, in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

𝑳𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑳𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒚 “𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉-𝑾𝒆𝒔𝒕-2” 𝒗. 𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒏𝒊𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒕 𝑺.𝑷.𝑨. 

🇮🇳🇷🇺 The Bombay High Court held that, at the pre-trial stage, the Russian judgment could not be regarded as conclusive. The Court also found that the jurisdiction of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow was doubtful in light of the arbitration agreements and the pending international arbitration.

🔗 Attached is the judgment dated 8 June 2026.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈