๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐-๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ป๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ฟ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ.
In Case No. ะ76-26020/2025, the court held that where a commercial transaction lies outside the scope of Russian counter-sanctions measures, sanctions cannot serve as a ground for casting doubt on the arbitral award.
In 2019, a Russian company (the Seller/Debtor) and an Italian company (the Buyer/Assignor) entered into a contract. The Buyer paid USD 90,851.73 as an advance payment.
In 2024, the Assignor and another Russian company (the Assignee/Creditor) entered into an assignment agreement under which the Assignor transferred to the Assignee the right to claim from the Seller the advance payment under the contract, in the amount of USD 90,851.73.
In 2025, an arbitral tribunal seated in Moscow, Russia, issued an award in favour of the Creditor and ordered the Debtor to pay the Creditor USD 90,851.73, along with fines and arbitration fees.
The Creditor sought enforcement of the arbitral award, while the Debtor opposed it, relying on the following grounds: (1) the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause; and (2) enforcement would be contrary to the temporary public policy of the Russian Federation, as the arbitral award allegedly violated Russian counter-sanctions measures established by presidential decrees.
The court dismised both objections.
(1) The arbitration clause was broadly worded and imposed no limits on the types of disputes that could be brought before arbitration.
(2) Neither the Buyer/Assignor nor the 2019 contract was subject to Russian counter-sanctions measures. The commercial transactions between the Seller and the Buyer had a genuine economic nature, and the court found no โred flagsโ indicating sham transactions.
To conclude, Case No. ะ76-26020/2025 is not the first instance in which an award debtor has sought to cast doubt on an arbitral award by invoking sanctions. The outcome of such challenges depends on numerous factors, and in this case, those factors were not satisfied.
ProArbitration.Ru
Post #134
78