ProArbitration.Ru

📘 2025 International Arbitration Survey: ‘The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration’.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

Channel name was changed to «ProArbitration.Ru»

In Case No A21-16114/2024, a cassation court held that anti-suit/anti-arbitration injunctions under Article 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code apply to both (a) a defendant named in the court order, and (b) persons under the control of the defendant, even if such persons are not named in the court order.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In Case No A63-2940/2020, a Russian court has refused to recognize a 2022 LCIA award, citing that the award creditor is a legal entity whose shareholders are from 'unfriendly' countries and have (or had) business links to Ukraine.

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In brief, a Russian court 🇷🇺 has recognized and enforced:

- an arbitral award rendered under the Rules of the International Arbitration Court at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Case No. А40-114833/2025; decision dated June 25, 2025). #Belarus 🇧🇾

- a court decision issued by a court in Kazakhstan (Case No. А40-84709/2025; decision dated June 25, 2025). #Kazakhstan 🇰🇿

ProArbitration.Ru✈

UPD. 🇷🇺🇰🇿 No miracle in court: on June 24, a cassation court upheld the decision that the AIFC Court does not fall within the scope of Article 54 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters (Chisinau, 7 October 2002).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇦🇿 A Russian cassation court has upheld the recognition and enforcement of an Azerbaijani court decision (Case No. А32-5059/2025). #Azerbaijan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇺🇸🇭🇰 A Hong Kong company successfully invoked the 'Lugovoy Act' against a U.S.-based bank in a Russian court.

I have already reported on a case in which a Chinese company successfully blocked an LCIA arbitration clause in a Russian court by invoking the 'Lugovoy Act'. Today, a new case has arisen.

In Case No. А40-232285/23-107-1782, a Russian court assumed exclusive jurisdiction over a matter brought before it by a Hong Kong-based company, which is a subsidiary of a Russian-sanctioned person. Moreover, the Russian court reaffirmed that if a dispute arises from unilateral sanctions, a Russian court ipso facto has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. A dispute resolution clause designating Hong Kong as the forum was disregarded by the Russian court.

As a result, the Russian court has ordered a U.S.-based bank to pay a Hong Kong-based company over 4 million Hong Kong dollars and over 390,000 U.S. dollars. These amounts were blocked in a bank account due to unilateral sanctions.

The court’s ruling dated June 11, 2025, in Case No. А40-232285/23-107-1782 has not yet entered into force and may be appealed.

A permanent link to the blog post can be found here: https://smnlaw.ru/honkong-lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

A Chinese 🇨🇳 company successfully blocked an LCIA arbitration clause in a Russian 🇷🇺 court by relying on the 'Lugovoy Act'.

In previously resolved cases before Russian courts, the claimants—a German company and a Polish company—sought to invoke the 'Lugovoy Act' to challenge either a forum selection clause or an arbitration agreement. In both cases, the Russian courts dismissed these attempts and referred the parties to either a German court or LCIA arbitration. The courts emphasized that the 'Lugovoy Act' (Article 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Code) applies only when (a) a party to the dispute is included on a sanctions list or (b) the dispute arises from unilateral sanctions.

However, there appears to be at least one case in which a Russian court departed from this interpretation. In Case No. А12-22543/2022, a Chinese company—the claimant—successfully relied on Article 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Code, despite not being listed on a sanctions list and the dispute not clearly stemming from unilateral sanctions. The defendant, a Russian company, objected to the court’s jurisdiction and demanded that the dispute be referred to LCIA arbitration, but the motion was dismissed.

It is likely that this case will eventually appear before the Russian Supreme Court.

A permanent link to the blog post can be found here: https://smnlaw.ru/chinese-lugovoy

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇲🇩 In brief: On June 10, 2025, a Russian court recognized and enforced a Moldovan court decision (Case No. А62-10497/2024). #Moldova

ProArbitration.Ru✈

A Russian court has refused to grant injunctions on freezing assets in support of arbitration seated in Moscow.

A claimant sought to freeze funds, stating that it had commenced arbitration proceedings. It requested the court to issue injunctions, alleging that the defendant was dissipating assets.

In its ex parte ruling dated June 10, 2025, the court found that the claimant's application did not meet the requirements for the granting of an injunction, as the claimant had failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant (Case No А40-140011/2025).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇲🇩 On June 5, 2025, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce a Moldovan court decision, finding that the Russian party against whom the decision was issued had not been duly served in the legal proceedings. In particular, the Russian party had been informed of the proceedings through newspaper publications, which contradicts an international treaty to which both the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova are contracting parties (Case No А53-354/2025). #Moldova

ProArbitration.Ru✈

In the Sibur case, the Russian Supreme Court reaffirmed that if unilateral sanctions were (or are) the cause of a dispute—for example, if a contract was not performed due to the imposition of restrictive measures—then Russian arbitrazh courts (state courts) courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, regardless of any arbitration clause. The dispute in that case involved bonds and included an LCIA arbitration clause (Russian Supreme Court decision dated May 30, 2025, in Case No. А40-116513/2024).

ProArbitration.Ru✈

🇷🇺🇰🇿 On June 2, 2025, a Russian court refused to recognize and enforce a Kazakh court decision, finding that the Russian party against whom the Kazakh decision was issued had not been duly served in the legal proceedings (Case No А67-2581/2025). #Kazakhstan

ProArbitration.Ru✈

Russia’s Constitutional Court refused to hear a complaint over a law allowing courts to assert exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned Russian parties.

My blog post on Constitutional Court Ruling No. 999-O of April 29, 2025, is here: https://smnlaw.ru/constitutional-court-refused

ProArbitration.Ru✈

📈📉 Over the past decade, a total of 2,395 cases concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign adjudicatory acts were considered by Russian arbitrazh courts, of which 1,519 were successful—resulting in an average success rate of 63%.
***
Over the decade from 2014 to 2024, Russian state courts (arbitrazh courts) considered a total of 2,395 cases related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral awards. This averages out to approximately 239 cases per year.

Out of these 2,395 cases, applications were granted in 1,519 instances, meaning that a foreign court decision or foreign arbitral award was recognized and enforced in Russia. This corresponds to an average of 151 cases per year.

The average rate of successful applications is 63%.

Note:

1. Separate data on the enforcement and recognition of foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral awards is not available publicly.

2. The figures do not include cases considered by courts of general jurisdiction or bankruptcy cases where recognition of foreign court decisions or arbitral awards might also arise.

For the text in Russian, click here.

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✈

🇷🇺🇦🇪 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✈

🇷🇺 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✈