TGViewer
Channel Public Channel
ProArbitration.Ru

ProArbitration.Ru

@proarbitrationru

Litigation and arbitration in Russia.

by Mikhail Samoylov, LL.M. (MIDS).

📨 @MSMContact_bot
Subscribers
144
Photos
4
Videos
0
Links
180

Showing posts older than #135 · Back to latest

Older Posts 20 shown
Post #134 78
𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀-𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱.

In Case No. А76-26020/2025, 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 “red flags” indicating sham transactions.

To conclude, Case No. А76-26020/2025 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 #133 78
𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 (𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟑–𝟐𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓).

In Case No. А40-14438/2025, the cassation court, by its decision dated October 13, 2025, upheld a lower court’s decision recognizing and enforcing in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Belarus. #Belarus

In Case No. А03-15156/2025, the court, by its decision dated October 13, 2025, recognized and enforced in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. #Kazakhstan

In Case No. А46-13736/2025, the court, by its decision dated October 17, 2025, recognized and enforced in Russia a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. #Kyrgyzstan

ProArbitration.Ru
Post #132 70
ProArbitration.Ru 🇷🇺 The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation has appealed the court order that restrained a 🇩🇪 Germany-based investor from pursuing an investment claim against the Russian Federation. The case will be considered by a cassation court on October 16…
IBA membership as a basis for bias.

In Case No. А40-92702/2025, the cassation court, on the one hand, upheld the lower court’s ruling restraining a Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investor’s investment claim against the Russian Federation; on the other hand, it stated that the presiding arbitrator, being a member of the International Bar Association (IBA)—and taking into account the IBA’s statements critical of Russia—is unable to adjudicate the dispute impartially and objectively.

P.S. The cassation court’s 23-page decision, dated October 17, 2025, is worth reading in full. 📄

ProArbitration.Ru
Post #131 210
𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝘃𝘀. 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲. In Case No. А40-189091/2025, by an order dated October 15, 2025, a Russian court granted the application of Google LLC (Russia) and restrained Google Ireland Limited from proceeding with AAA arbitration. The court also imposed a fine of RUB 65 billion (approximately USD 820 million) for each instance of non-compliance with its order.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • 👍 1
Post #130 82
𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 🇷🇺

In Case No. А53-354/2025, a cassation court upheld a lower court’s decision refusing to recognize and enforce in Russia 🇷🇺 a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Moldova 🇲🇩 on the grounds that the defendant had not been properly served with notice of the legal proceedings.

In Cases No. А40-195203/2025 and А40-154875/2025, decisions issued by courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 and the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿 were recognized and enforced in Russia 🇷🇺 by the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • ❤ 2
  • 👍 1
Post #129 80
Михаил Самойлов 📚 Подготовили очередной Обзор судебной практики по трансграничным спорам (общие вопросы арбитража, санкции, применение норм иностранного права, признание иностранных судебных/арбитражных решений, морское право). Впервые приведена практика не только российских…
Желающие к нам присоединиться, добро пожаловать -

https://forms.yandex.ru/u/68ea412790fa7b4056e30af4

Форма активна до 22.10.2025 23:59 мск.
Post #128 91
If certain frozen funds or economic resources must be released “for the purposes of paying a roll fee and a flat-rate contribution which must be paid, pursuant to national law, upon lodging a court action against a national measure implementing that regulation” (see ECLI:EU:C:2025:696), should frozen funds likewise be released for the commencement of arbitration proceedings? If so, for what kind of proceedings?

ProArbitration.Ru
  • ❤ 1
Post #127 88

Forwarded from Михаил Самойлов

📚 Подготовили очередной Обзор судебной практики по трансграничным спорам (общие вопросы арбитража, санкции, применение норм иностранного права, признание иностранных судебных/арбитражных решений, морское право).

Впервые приведена практика не только российских судов 🇷🇺, но и судов Республики Беларусь 🇧🇾 и Республики Узбекистан 🇺🇿. Пока практики из этих стран не так много, но и имеющаяся практика дает определенные представление о том, как суды Республики Беларусь и Республики Узбекистан, скорее всего, будут разрешать вопросы, связанные с исключительной подсудностью и признанием российских арбитражных решений. На сколько мне известно, такая практика публикуется в России впервые.

За 6 лет работы над Обзором, пожалуй, впервые, отмечаем резкий спад дел о признании иностранных арбитражных решений в России.

📎 Русская версия Обзора за 1-е полугодие 2025 г. доступна по ссылке.

Английская - скоро.
  • ❤ 2
Post #126 86
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…
🇷🇺 The Russian Supreme Court has refused a bid to reconsider Case No. А56-6573/2025. This means that the cassation court’s position — according to which the Commonwealth of Independent States Agreement dated March 20, 1992 prevails over the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code — has been upheld.

As a result, Russian courts cannot invoke the public policy defense to deny recognition of foreign court decisions originating from the Republic of Azerbaijan 🇦🇿, the Republic of Armenia 🇦🇲, the Republic of Belarus 🇧🇾, the Republic of Kazakhstan 🇰🇿, the Kyrgyz Republic 🇰🇬, the Republic of Tajikistan 🇹🇯, Turkmenistan 🇹🇲, or the Republic of Uzbekistan 🇺🇿.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • ❤ 1
Post #125 84
ProArbitration.Ru 🇷🇺 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫’𝐬 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. On September 8, 2025, a Russian court restrained a 🇩🇪 Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investor’s investment claim against the Russian Federation. The court…
🇷🇺 The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation has appealed the court order that restrained a 🇩🇪 Germany-based investor from pursuing an investment claim against the Russian Federation.

The case will be considered by a cassation court on October 16, 2025.

ProArbitration.Ru
Post #124 183
🇷🇺 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝟭𝟴𝟮𝟮).

Two centuries ago, Emperor Alexander I of Russia acted as arbitrator in the dispute between the United States and the Great Britain concerning the interpretation of Article I of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814. Among the advisers who assisted the Emperor in this matter were Mikhail Speransky and Count Ioannis Kapodistrias (John Capodistrias).

According to Speransky’s own note, he prepared and transmitted to Kapodistrias a memorandum entitled Mémoire sur l’interprétation de l’article du Traité de Gand.

To date, Speransky’s memorandum has neither been published nor identified in Russian archival collections. It is likely that Kapodistrias took the document with him when he departed from Russia. The present location of the memorandum therefore remains unknown.

A research question arises as to whether any memoirs, published works, or archival collections of Kapodistrias in Greek or French exist that shed light on Speransky’s memorandum and its existence.

If anyone has seen the Speransky’s memorandum or knows something about it, I would be very grateful if you could let me know.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • ❤ 2
Post #122 101
🇷🇺 🇰🇷 𝗔 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗞𝗖𝗔𝗕 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

A claimant, a company domiciled in the Republic of Korea, brought a legal action for debt recovery against a respondent, a Russian company, while the contract contained an arbitration clause providing for “an arbitration court at the claimant’s place of location.”

The wording “an arbitration court” might, in Russia, be interpreted as a reference to a state commercial court rather than to arbitration. Even if the claimant understood it that way, it still remains unclear why the Russian court was chosen, whereas the claimant’s place of location is in the Republic of Korea.

The respondent objected to the litigation and pointed out that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration.

The court emphasized that since the claimant is domiciled in the Republic of Korea, it must have known that there are no “arbitration courts” as state courts in the Republic of Korea. There is only one arbitral institution — the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

Some errors in the name of the adjudicating body were made in the arbitration clause; however, they did not in themselves lead to the invalidity of the arbitration clause, the court concluded.

Thus, the court left the statement of claim without consideration and referred the parties to arbitration.

The court’s ruling of September 16, 2025, in Case No. А51-22733/2024 may be appealed.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • ❤ 1
Post #121 109
⚖ 𝗡𝗼 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀? 𝗡𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺: 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

In Case No. А43-27728/2024, a saga concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in a Russian-seated arbitration, a 🇨🇭 Swiss-based company sought enforcement of the award rendered in its favor. The case was considered by the courts multiple times, and on September 11, 2025, the cassation court rendered its decision in favor of the Swiss-based company, concluding as follows:

🟢 The absence of a bank account in Russia is not a barrier to the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in favor of a foreign company, even if the company is domiciled in an “unfriendly” jurisdiction.

🟢 The fact that a company is domiciled in Switzerland does not, by itself, demonstrate that enforcement of the arbitral award would violate the fundamental principles of the economic, political, or legal system of the Russian Federation.

🟢 If a commercial transaction does not fall under the scope of the Russian presidential decrees on counter-sanctions measures, these decrees are not applicable and cannot serve as legal grounds to oppose enforcement.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • ❤ 2
Post #120 84
🇷🇺 🇦🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠. On September 11, 2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced a decision rendered by a court of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Russia (Case No. А15-4529/2025). #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru
  • 👍 1
Post #117 87
🇷🇺 🇦🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠. On September 10, 2025, the Russian Supreme Court refused a bid for reconsideration of Case А32-5059/2025, in which a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Azerbaijan was recognized and enforced in Russia. #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru
Post #116 100
🇷🇺 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫’𝐬 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

On September 8, 2025, a Russian court restrained a 🇩🇪 Germany-based investor and its counsel from pursuing the investor’s investment claim against the Russian Federation. The court also prohibited the arbitrators from considering the case and set a penalty of EUR 7.5 billion for any breach of the court ruling (Case No. А40-92702/2025). As of today, only the operative part of the ruling has been published.

ProArbitration.Ru
  • 🤬 1
Post #115
ProArbitration.Ru pinned «My recent blog post on the validity of arbitration clauses in Russia since 2022 is now out. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/validity-of-arbitration-clauses-in-russia-since-2022/ ProArbitration.Ru»
Post #114 108
Post #113 77
🇷🇺🇦🇪🇺🇿 𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠.

In Case No. А53-35288/2024, the cassation court, by its decision of September 4, 2025, upheld a lower court ruling that recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Emirate of Dubai in Russia. #Dubai

In Case No. А41-49900/2025, the court of first instance, by its ruling of September 5, 2025, recognized and enforced a decision issued by a court of the Republic of Uzbekistan in Russia. #Uzbekistan

ProArbitration.Ru
  • 👍 1
Older posts →
Threads Profile ViewerView any public Threads profile without an account.Open ThreadLook →Writing with AI? Make it sound human.Metric37 rewrites AI drafts so they read naturally. Free AI detector, 1,500 words free.Try Metric37 →