TGViewer
ProArbitration.Ru ProArbitration.Ru @proarbitrationru ยท 144 subscribers
Post #134 78
๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ท๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜€ ๐—ฆ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€-๐—•๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—–๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ด๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—˜๐—ป๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—”๐—ฟ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—”๐˜„๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ.

In Case No. ะ76-26020/2025, 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 โ€œred flagsโ€ indicating sham transactions.

To conclude, Case No. ะ76-26020/2025 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
More from @proarbitrationru
  1. Oct 13, 2026๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณBy a decision dated 5 October 2026 in case No. A40-149292/2026, a Russian court reโ€ฆ
  2. Oct 12, 2026๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐”๐ฉ๐๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐„๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š (๐Ž๐œ๐ญ๐จ๐›๐žโ€ฆ
  3. Oct 6, 2026๐—” ๐—ฅ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ต๐—ผ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ด๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผโ€ฆ
  4. Sep 29, 2026๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐”๐ฉ๐๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐„๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐š (๐’๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ๐ž๐ฆโ€ฆ
  5. Sep 28, 2026๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ฒ A Russian court has refused to recognize and enforce a ruling of an Armenian courโ€ฆ
  6. Sep 27, 2026A Russian cassation court has finally dismissed an application in which the applicant sougโ€ฆ
Threads Profile ViewerView any public Threads profile without an account.Open ThreadLook โ†’Writing with AI? Make it sound human.Metric37 rewrites AI drafts so they read naturally. Free AI detector, 1,500 words free.Try Metric37 โ†’