🇷🇺 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 ✈

Can the English courts grant an injunction restraining proceedings brought in a foreign court under the New York Convention?

This issue is to be decided by the UK Supreme Court. 

The hearing is scheduled for 15–16 June 2026.

🔗 https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0150

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

In Case No. A40-332538/25-68-2153, a Russian court issued a decision on 15 May 2026 recognising and enforcing an ICC award in 🇷🇺 Russia. The ICC award had been rendered in favour of a 🇸🇬 Singapore-based company against a 🇰🇷 South Korean company.

The Russian court also ordered the award debtor to pay a court-imposed fine of RUB 10,000 for each seven-day period of non-compliance if the award debtor failed to comply with the court’s decision on recognition and enforcement.

Follow the link to access the decision in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

In Case No. А56-24289/2025, by a decision dated 19 June 2026, a Russian court left without consideration an action brought by VTB Bank against JPMorgan Chase Bank on the ground that the parties to the dispute had concluded an arbitration agreement.

Recently, an English court granted an anti-suit injunction (ASI) restraining VTB Bank from pursuing its claim before the Russian court (see [2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm)).

Had the claimant intended to continue the proceedings, it would have had a way to do so.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺🇸🇬 A Russian court, by its ruling dated 8 July 2026 (Case No. A40-20468/2024), has granted an application to reconsider its ruling dated 2 October 2024 on the recognition and enforcement in Russia of a USD 500 million SIAC award against Petrovietnam.

The court granted reconsideration on the ground of newly discovered circumstances, namely the Singapore Court of Appeal's judgment in [2025] SGCA 50.

📆 A hearing is scheduled for 3 August 2026.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🇷🇺🇹🇷🇨🇭𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗨𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀 𝗟𝗖𝗜𝗔 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. In Case No. A56-24342/2025, by decision dated 17 July 2026, a Russian court refused a motion brought by a Russian company to restrain a Turkish company and a Swiss company from pursuing its claims in LCIA arbitration. The court held that the Russian company had neither been included on any sanctions lists nor was the dispute under arbitration arising out of unilateral sanctions.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

🤖 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱. It seems that the case of Remizova v. EnergoPof LLC is the first case in Russia in which an employee was fired, among other reasons, for uploading confidential information to DeepSeek.

The court of first instance's judgment dated 26 May 2026, in Russian, is attached.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈

𝗗𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮? 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 '𝘆𝗲𝘀,' 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗿.

In Case No. A56-113018/2025, a Russian entity, disregarding an LMAA arbitration clause, brought a legal action against two Russian entities. By its ruling dated 28 May 2026, the court of first instance referred the parties to the agreed forum. The court held that (1) the claimant was not listed on any sanctions list, and (2) there was no evidence that the defendants, despite being included on the UK sanctions list, would face obstacles in accessing arbitration.

The court of appeal overturned the court of first instance's ruling. By its ruling dated 22 July 2026, the court of appeal held that, since the defendants are included on the UK sanctions list, this creates objective obstacles to accessing arbitration; consequently, the dispute is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian courts. The court of appeal's ruling may be subject to cassation review.

Recently, in Case No. A43-34213/2023, a Russian court, by its ruling dated 28 June 2026, upheld an LMAA arbitration clause in a case brought by a Cyprus-based entity. The court held that neither party to the dispute had been included on any sanctions list. The ruling dated 28 June 2026 has been appealed; the hearing date has not yet been set.

ProArbitration.Ru ✈