🇷🇺🇩🇪 A Germany-based company filed a legal action in a Russian court. However, the court declined jurisdiction and referred the parties to their chosen court—a German court (Case No. А66-19469/2024). Notably, this is not the first instance in which a foreign company has unsuccessfully attempted to override a forum selection clause by invoking case law on the 'Lugovoy Law.' #Germany #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇩🇪 UPD. In case No. А56-49800/2024, a cassation court overturned the lower court's decision that had recognized a German court ruling in Russia, and referred the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

The cassation court noted that the lower court should examine whether there was an actual contractual relationship between the parties and whether a Russian presidential decree on counter-sanctions should be applied. #Germany

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇿 In brief, a Russian court has recognized a decision rendered by an Azerbaijani court (Case No. А32-5059/2025). #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇧🇾 A Belarusian court heard a case in violation of an ICC arbitration clause and rendered a decision, but a Russian court refused to recognize the Belarusian court's decision (Case No. А56-6573/2025). #Belarus

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇺🇿 In brief, a Russian court has recognized a decision rendered by an Uzbekistan court (Case No. А07-6374/2025). #Uzbekistan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 The 10th Arbitrazh Court of Appeal disregarded a litigation clause in favor of a Kazakh court, as the sanctioned Russian company faced obstacles in accessing justice—specifically, its inability to pay legal fees and obtain legal assistance. As a result, the case will be heard by a Russian state court (Case No А41-51293/24). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺 🇰🇿 In brief, Russian courts have recognized several decisions rendered by Kazakh courts (Cases No. А50-4304/2025, А46-4985/2025, А40-298656/2024). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📖 The Review of Russian court practice on arbitration and cross-border litigation for the second half of 2024 is now available in English.

The Review for the first half of 2024 is here.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇪 A Russian court has recognised a judgment issued by a Dubai court—good news. However, the Russian court based its reasoning, inter alia, on the 1958 New York Convention. That is less encouraging (Case No. А53-35288/2024). #Dubai

P.S. From time to time, and over the decades, Russian courts have applied the 1958 New York Convention to decisions of foreign courts. While it is an incorrect approach, that is the current situation. You can find my publications, which address incorrect case-law practices, in both Russian and English.

For the English version, see the Kluwer Arbitration Blog; for the Russian version, see my Telegram.

🇬🇧https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/09/25/the-material-scope-of-the-1958-new-york-convention-russian-courts-make-it-broader/

🇷🇺https://t.me/lawandsky/329


ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺 🇨🇾 A Russian court, in case No. A40-279675/2024, has refused to recognize a judgment issued by a Cypriot court, which ordered a debtor to pay EUR 22 million to the applicant (a company). In addition to classical grounds—such as sanctions and references to the 1958 New York Convention—some new arguments have also emerged.

First, the applicant’s beneficiary is the subject of an international criminal arrest warrant. Therefore, in the court’s view, a judgment in favor of the company and its enforcement would result in the beneficiary’s enrichment, which would be contrary to public policy.

Second, the debtor accused the applicant of engaging in fraudulent transactions. According to the court, the applicant’s beneficiary should have appeared before the Russian court to testify regarding the circumstances of these transactions. #Cyprus

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 A Russian court—while considering the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award from Kazakhstan—granted interim measures and ordered the freezing of 89 million RUB belonging to the debtor (Case No. A06-3796/2025). Generally, Russian courts are reluctant to grant interim measures, particularly in support of international arbitration. #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇺🇸 For those of you following the Citibank case in Russia, the Russian Supreme Court has published its decision, dated May 12, 2025, in Russian.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In Case No. А40-118242/2024, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce an ICC arbitral award (decision dated February 7, 2025). A cassation court upheld this decision on May 12, 2025. The courts held that enforcement would contradict a Russian presidential counter-sanction decree and would violate public policy.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇸🇬 According to the Russian court, when the seat of arbitration is located in a country that has imposed sanctions against Russia, the neutrality of the arbitration is compromised. In this case, the courts—a court of first instance and a cassation court—refused to recognize an award issued under the auspices of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), despite the participation of a Russian party in the arbitration (Case No. А45-1031/2025). #Singapore

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇩🇪 Updated: A cassation court, in its decision dated May 14, 2025, confirmed that the 'Lugovoy Law' does not apply if the claimant is a foreign company. In case No. A66-19469/2024, involving German and Russian parties, the dispute was referred to a German court. #Germany #Lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺 The Russian courts recognized an ICSID Additional Facility Award. The parties to the ICSID Additional Facility proceeding were a Russian investor and a state subject to EU and U.S. sanctions.

In parallel, the courts rejected the debtor's argument that the arbitral proceedings violated the principles of impartiality and objectivity on the grounds that the arbitrators were from "unfriendly" countries (Bulgaria 🇧🇬, Switzerland 🇨🇭/Brazil 🇧🇷, and Canada 🇨🇦).

The courts noted that the arbitral panel was composed of arbitrators from countries that were, and still are, considered "unfriendly" to both parties involved in the ICSID Additional Facility proceedings. Therefore, it can be inferred that the courts considered the parties to have been on equal footing.

⚖️References to the court decisions (Case No А40-46865/2024):

- First-instance court ruling dated November 5, 2024.

- Appeal court decision dated February 5, 2025.

- Cassation court decision dated April 29, 2025.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇪 A Russian court has recognized and enforced a Dubai court decision. As usual, the court was guided by the 1958 New York Convention, among other instruments. Case No. А53-23536/24 is the second instance in which a Dubai court decision has been recognized in Russia (see Case No. А53-35288/24). #Dubai

ProArbitration.Ru✈

Update: On May 27, 2025, a cassation court overturned the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. The court emphasized that, during the new proceedings, Russian counter-sanctions measures must be taken into account (Case No. А56-28968/2024). #Latvia

ProArbitration.Ru✈