The Russian counter-sanctions measures and enforcement of arbitral awards.

As of today, multiple cases—either adjudicated or pending before various levels of Russian courts—illustrate differing impacts of counter-sanctions measures on arbitral awards.

In a previous case decided on June 26, 2025, arguments against a domestic arbitral award based on counter-sanction measures were unsuccessful. In Case No. А40-211260/2024, the award creditor sought enforcement of a domestic arbitral award. The award debtor objected, citing counter-sanctions measures under Russian Presidential decrees.

The dispute arose out of an assignment agreement. Initially, there was a supply contract dated 24.01.2022, concluded between an Estonian 🇪🇪 company (the buyer, and the initial creditor) and a Russian 🇷🇺 company (the seller, and the debtor). The buyer made an advance payment. Subsequently, an assignment agreement dated 24.11.2023 was concluded between the Estonian company and a Russian company—the second creditor—who commenced arbitration and obtained an award in its favor in 2024.

According to the debtor's view, the assignment agreement violated Russian counter-sanctions measures under the Russian Presidential decrees. However, both the court of first instance and the cassation court rejected this argument, holding that the Presidential decrees had not been breached by the arbitrator and, moreover, that the Presidential decrees did not apply to the assignment agreement in question. Thus, courts granted the enforcement of the arbitral award.

To conclude, whether the Russian counter-sanctions measures may undermine the enforceability of arbitral awards—both domestic and international—is a matter that requires careful, case-by-case consideration.

A permanent link: https://smnlaw.ru/sanctions-award-1

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇰🇿 In Case No. А50-4304/2025, the cassation court, by its decision dated July 21, 2025, upheld the lower court's ruling recognizing and enforcing a decision of a Kazakh court in Russia. #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇩🇪 In the absence of a bilateral treaty or evidence that German courts recognize Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity, German court decisions are not recognized in Russia.

In Case No. А56-49800/2024, concerning the recognition and enforcement of a German court decision (issued by the Landgericht Stuttgart) in Russia, the Russian court states:

Since there is no bilateral treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the recognition and enforcement of court decisions, and the applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that German courts have recognized and enforced Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity within the past three years, the court denies the application for recognition and enforcement of the German court decision in Russia.

Notably, in the first round of consideration, the Russian court recognized and enforced the German court's decision despite the Russian anti-sanctions measures. However, the cassation court ordered the case to be reconsidered, and in the second round, the court dismissed the application.

It is also worth noting that the Russian court requested evidence of German court practice regarding the recognition and enforcement of Russian court decisions based on the principle of reciprocity over the past three years, i.e., since 2022. #Germany

ProArbitration.Ru

If an international treaty to which Russia is a party establishes rules concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions that differ from those set forth in domestic law, the provisions of the international treaty shall prevail.

In Case No. A56-6573/2025, the applicant sought to prevent the enforcement of a Belarusian court decision in Russia.

The lower court, referring to Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code (which sets out the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions), granted the application by its decision dated April 4, 2025. The court found that the Belarusian court's decision would breach the public policy of Russia.

By its decision dated July 17, 2025, the Court of Cassation overturned the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the application. The cassation court provides the following reasons:

If a foreign court decision originates from a country that is a party to the Commonwealth of Independent States Agreement dated March 20, 1992 concerning the resolution of disputes arising from business activities (in this case, a Belarusian court decision), then a Russian court must be guided by Article 9 of the Agreement, which sets out the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision. In such cases, Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code should not be applied, as it establishes the public policy defence (a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement), whereas Article 9 of the Agreement does not provide for this defence.

The cassation court approach is an important one:

First, Article 9 of the Agreement provides narrower grounds for refusing recognition of a court decision than Article 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code. For example, a violation of public policy—a commonly invoked defence against recognition and enforcement—is not a ground for refusal under Article 9 of the Agreement.

Second, as of today, the Agreement is in force in the following States: the Republic of Azerbaijan 🇦🇿, the Republic of Armenia 🇦🇲, the Republic of Belarus 🇧🇾, the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿, the Kyrgyz Republic 🇰🇬, the Russian Federation 🇷🇺, the Republic of Tajikistan 🇹🇯, Turkmenistan 🇹🇲, and the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿. Accordingly, court decisions originating from these countries may benefit from the favorable provision contemplated in Article 9 of the Agreement.

Whether the approach in Case No. A56-6573/2025 is spreading to other courts remains to be seen.

***

The permanent link to the blog post can be found here: https://smnlaw.ru/international-treaty1

***

ProArbitration.Ru

Tertiary jurisdiction?

A court that has jurisdiction to (i) assist in arbitration and/or (ii) annul or set aside an arbitral award is said to have primary jurisdiction. A court that has jurisdiction to enforce or refuse enforcement of an arbitral award is said to have secondary jurisdiction. It appears that a new type of jurisdiction is emerging — tertiary jurisdiction — referring to a court that grants anti-arbitration injunctions.

As follows from the Delhi High Court's decision dated July 25, 2025, MSA GLOBAL LLC (Oman) commenced ICC arbitration proceedings, seated in Singapore, against EPIL (India). The arbitral tribunal was constituted in 2023.

In 2025, EPIL challenged the constitution of the arbitral tribunal before the High Court of Singapore. This is consistent with the principle that such challenges should be brought before the court of the primary jurisdiction.

EPIL also obtained an anti-arbitration injunction from the Delhi High Court (India). The Delhi High Court held that it 'has the jurisdiction to entertain this civil suit as the arbitration proceedings are prima facie vexatious and oppressive in nature'. As long as the seat of arbitration is not in India, this appears to introduce a third jurisdiction—i.e., a State in which a court may issue injunctions against arbitral proceedings seated elsewhere.

📑 The Delhi High Court’s decision dated July 25, 2025 is available at the following link - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59625072025IA97242025_170255.pdf

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇨🇭 In Case No. A40-221290/2023, the cassation court by its decision dated July 29, 2025, upheld the lower court's decision recognizing and enforcing the Zurich-seated award in Russia. However, there is one issue: the award debtor likely has no assets within the Russian Federation, which raises the question of whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the enforcement matter. #Switzerland

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇨🇳 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮

In Case No. A56-120092/2023, the cassation court confirmed that an application for the recognition and enforcement of a court decision issued by a Chinese court in Russia must be submitted in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters dated June 19, 1992, rather than under Russian procedural law.

In the case at hand, a Chinese company sought recognition and enforcement in Russia of a Chinese court decision rendered against a Russian company.

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are parties to the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters (signed in Beijing on June 19, 1992), which, among other things, governs the recognition and enforcement of court decisions and entered into force on November 14, 1993.

According to Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. That court is then responsible for transmitting the decision to a court in the other Contracting Party’s country.

The Chinese company disregarded Article 17 of the Treaty and filed its application for recognition and enforcement directly with a Russian court, relying on Russian procedural law instead.

The court of first instance discontinued the proceedings, and the cassation court, in its decision dated July 31, 2025, upheld the lower court’s approach, reiterating that under Article 17 of the Treaty, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision. #China


ProArbitration.Ru

Where a Russian party is subject to a foreign court’s anti-suit injunction and seeks to withdraw its claim or appeal in a Russian court in order to comply with that injunction, the request must be denied by the Russian court as it would contravene the right of access to justice under Russian law (Case No. А21-12793/2023).

ProArbitration.Ru

🇷🇺 🇰🇿 For those of you following the battle over the recognition and enforcement of an AIFC Court decision in Russia, the cassation court has published its decision. It is available in Russian at the link. The applicant still has the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the case before the Russian Supreme Court. #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru

In Case No. А42-5661/2025, a court of first instance followed the Russian Supreme Court's approach (Case No. А45-19015/2023) and concluded that arbitrators from the Netherlands 🇳🇱 and Singapore 🇸🇬 lacked impartiality and objectivity, as these countries are considered “unfriendly” to Russia 🇷🇺.

ProArbitration.Ru

🇬🇧 Foreign Ministry Statement on the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the arbitral proceedings concerning the Kerch Strait Incident of November 25, 2018

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2042453/


🇫🇷 Déclaration du ministère des Affaires étrangères de Russie concernant la sortie de la Fédération de Russie de la procédure d'arbitrage sur "l'incident de Kertch" du 25 novembre 2018

https://mid.ru/fr/foreign_policy/news/2042453/

ProArbitration.Ru