On 17 June 2026 the Presidium of the Supreme Court approved thematic Review No. 8/2026 on the application of legislation on special economic measures by commercial courts. The procedural section of the document addresses three questions acute for business with an international element: where to litigate, what anti-suit injunctions are, and how to enforce a foreign award or judgment in Russia.
The state is consistently bringing cross-border disputes under Russian jurisdiction. However, getting a foreign partner to agree to settle disputes in Russian courts is far from easy, especially in the current environment. Therefore, a lawyer’s skill is to take a creative look at the Review and see what lies beneath and not on the surface. Let us discuss the circumstances under which the regulator still allows the parties to agree on resolving disputes abroad.
When parties sign a contract, they do not anticipate potential conflicts, and the dispute resolution clause is viewed as a formality to be agreed upon as a matter of routine. The problem is that the world in which the contract acts is changing faster than the contract itself. The conditions that were valid for the clause three years ago apply no longer today, and if a dispute arises, it is resolved by the rules other than those the parties anticipated initially. Hence a question we are regularly asked: are there any stable dispute resolution mechanisms left at all, and is it still possible to choose a neutral forum that isn’t a Russian state court? The short answer is this: such options still exist, but the room for manoeuvre has narrowed, and the likelihood of making the wrong choice has increased.
There are not actually that many new provisions in the Review. The pro-state approach, which has been taking shape and gaining strength in practice since 2022, is fully evident in it. But the document is valuable for at least two reasons. First, the disparate positions of the courts have been compiled and summarised into a single text for the first time. Second, it captures practical points that one rarely considers when drafting a contract, but which later determine the outcome. For instance, the requirement to a foreign creditor to hold an account with a Russian bank — which might seem like a procedural matter — but for a creditor from an unfriendly jurisdiction it is often impossible to meet, for sanctions and regulatory reasons (both because of the Western sanctions status of a large number of Russian banks and because of the need to register for tax purposes in Russia).
By its very nature, the Review is a prohibitive document. Basically its entire content is a list of "don'ts," and there are quite a lot of them. Therefore, one must approach it from the opposite angle, reading between the lines to determine what freedom is still left to the parties regarding dispute resolution provisions, including arbitration clauses.
Three Risk Areas for Arbitration Clauses
When a Dispute May Be Transferred to Russia
Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Review and Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code identify two criteria; if both are met, the dispute is heard in a Russian court even if the arbitration clause is still in effect. The first one is location of the court or arbitration tribunal outside Russia. The second is that the dispute involves foreign restrictive measures, or one of the parties faces obstacles to accessing justice abroad. It is important to remember that foreign restrictive measures are not limited to sanctions in the narrow sense. They also include visa restrictions, logistical difficulties, and any other obstacles that prevent the Russian party from participating normally in proceedings abroad. The Review explicitly classifies a denial of entry for the purpose of participating in a hearing as a restrictive measure.
Of particular interest is the fact that several paragraphs of the Review (for example, paragraphs 15 and 17) make no mention whatsoever of the unfriendliness of a foreign jurisdiction as a condition for transferring a dispute to Russia. The Supreme Court appears to attach importance primarily to the fact that the court or arbitration is located abroad. Formally, this means that transferring a dispute to Russian courts is possible even if arbitration is taking place in a friendly country. Given the overall circumstances and previous clarifications by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, we can conclude that the unfriendly nature of the jurisdiction is an additional (but not mandatory) ground for such a transfer of the dispute.
In light of the foregoing, arbitration clauses can be broadly divided into three categories.
The low-risk category includes clauses providing for the resolution of disputes under the rules of Russian arbitration centres (for example, the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, the Russian Arbitration Centre at the Russian Institute of Modern Arbitration, the Arbitration Centre at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, and so on). Even within this category risk cannot be excluded altogether. That is so, for example, where the parties have designated a foreign country as the seat of an arbitration administered under the rules of a Russian arbitral institution (in cases permitted by those rules). Even in this category it is impossible to completely eliminate risk; for example, if the parties have designated a foreign country as the seat of arbitration administered under the rules of a Russian arbitration centre (in cases permitted by those rules).1
The medium-risk category covers dispute resolution under the rules of arbitration centre in friendly countries.2
The high-risk category covers dispute resolution under the rules of arbitration centre in unfriendly countries.3
Receive the latest news on changes in Russian legislation
The Extent of the Russian Involvement as the Main Criterion
The boundaries between the categories are generally blurred. The court will likely focus not on the formal seat of arbitration and/or the location of the arbitral institution, but on the overall connections between the dispute and Russia. The more Russian involvement is in the arrangement, the lower the risk. It is therefore worth specifying additional terms in the arbitration clause in advance — for example, a requirement that the arbitrators not be the nationals of unfriendly states, together with requirements as to the seat of arbitration, the language of the proceedings and the applicable law.
The requirements for arbitrators deserve separate mention. Paragraph 19 of the Review establishes a presumption: if the arbitral tribunal includes nationals of unfriendly states, lack of impartiality and objectivity is presumed until proven otherwise. Neither the Review nor the underlying case provides a list of circumstances under which this presumption can be rebutted, so a rebuttal must be based on general logic — absence of filed challenges against the arbitrators; observance of procedural equality of the parties, a neutral or at least mixed composition of the tribunal, and so on. All of these arguments are subjective, and their effectiveness remains to be seen. This was highlighted in a recent case, decided after the publication of the Review, where a court found a Swedish arbitrator to be biased. The court gave no weight to the Russian claimant’s consent to the appointment, as the claimant had initially seen no reason for the arbitrator to have an interest in the outcome.4
Example
Determination of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court No. 304-ЭС24-2799 of 26 July 2024
Paragraph 19 of the Review is based on this very case. In a dispute over a supply of flaxseed in a FOSFA arbitration with arbitrators from unfriendly states, the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes applied the presumption that such a tribunal lacked impartiality and objectivity until proven otherwise.
In the context of this issue also noteworthy are recent instances of Russian courts recognizing arbitral awards made in unfriendly countries when the case involves a sufficient Russian element — a Russian claimant, a Russian arbitrator, the seat of arbitration in Russia and other similar factors.
Example
Case No. A60-26002/2026 ( Court of Appeal of the Sverdlovsk Region, 24 July 2026)
A Dutch supplier assigned its claim under a contract for the supply of flexible ceramics to a Russian individual. The seat of arbitration under the ICC Rules was Moscow, and the sole arbitrator was a Russian national. By the time the award was made, both parties had become Russian entities as a result of the assignment. The court authorized the enforcement of the ICC award, rejecting objections as to circumvention of sanctions, the fictitious nature of the assignment and the composition of the arbitral tribunal. The institution was from an unfriendly state, but the entire setup built around the clause turned out to be Russian.
Example
Case No. A40-332538/2025 (Moscow City Court of Appeal, 2026)
The ICC award in favour of Singapore-based Sibuglemet Trading against the South Korean companies Posco and Posco Holdings was recognised and enforced. The court reffered to the principle of effective jurisdiction, since the debtors have assets in Russia — patents, trademarks and a stake in a subsidiary. Russian control over the claimant company was also likely taken into account.
A contrasting example
Case No. A41-51293/2024 (Moscow District Court of Appeal, 21 August 2025)
The contract provided for dispute resolution at the defendant’s place of business in Kazakhstan. The court of first instance dismissed the claim, but the appellate and cassation courts resolved that the dispute must be heard by a Russian commercial court under Article 248.1, because the claimant, PJSC TransContainer, is under sanctions and the disconnection from SWIFT and the refusal of Kazakhstani lawyers to act set up a barrier to access to justice. The friendly character of the forum alone did not protect against the transfer of the dispute to Russia.
Anti-Suit Injunctions and Their Consequences
In the Review the Supreme Court also addressed anti-suit injunctions, (court orders prohibiting the initiation or continuation of proceedings abroad, as provided in Article 248.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), noting that failure to comply with such an injunction may result in a judicial penalty not exceeding the amount of the foreign claim and the costs of the case (paragraph 21 of the Review and Part 10 of Article 248.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), and that a motion for an anti-suit injunction must be considered on its merits.
It is also worth bearing in mind the risk of criminal liability for wilful failure to comply with a court order on anti-suit injunction (Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
A broader issue, beyond the scope of the Review is how Russian parties should respond to the mirror effects of Russian anti-claim injunctions they obtain abroad.
For example, Article 5ab of EU Regulation 833/2014, introduced by the European Union’s fourteenth sanctions package, prohibits EU persons from engaging in any transactions with those who have filed a claim with a Russian court under Articles 248.1 or 248.2. For business, this restriction is in some cases more painful than the others. Furthermore, Article 11a of the same Regulation also allows for recovery in EU courts of damages resulting from Russian rulings under these articles.
There are many examples of mirror bans from other countries as well, including friendly ones.5
Basically, in such cases, a party is caught in a crossfire and is confronted with a difficult dilemma: either to continue proceedings in one jurisdiction and accept the risk of liability in the other, or to abandon proceedings in both.
A Practical Guide to SIAC for Russian Business for 2026
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards in Russia
The Supreme Court has also commented on the enforcement of foreign judgments and awards.
The logic behind the Court’s position is the same as that noted above: the greater the Russian element in the judgment or award, the lower the risk of a refusal to recognise and enforce it (though this risk can never be completely ruled out). The court primarily takes into account the claimant’s unfriendly status and the category of the case (namely, whether enforcement falls under counter-sanctions regulation — e.g., whether the dispute arises from a loan, a credit, or the sale of shares in business entities or of real estate, and whether the transaction requires the approval of the government commission.
Example
Case No. A21-4252/2025 (Appellate Court of the Kaliningrad Region)
The court refused to recognise an LCIA award of more than EUR 250 million, concluding that enforcement would be contrary to public policy. The application for recognition was filed by the debtor itself, as it needed authorisation from a government commission, which in turn required prior judicial review.
A second factor noted in the Review is that the foreign creditor must have an account with a Russian bank into which the awarded funds can be credited (Part 22 of Article 30 of Law No. 229-FZ, as introduced by Law No. 624-FZ). In present conditions it is difficult to expect foreign creditors to open such accounts easily, since many Russian banks are under sanctions and opening an account also requires registration with the Russian tax authorities, although some parties from friendly jurisdictions do so.
Assignment of Claims and Its Limits
A clearer solution to the account-related problem is to assign the claim to a Russian creditor, who will not face such difficulties in collecting the funds. However, the assignment must comply with Russian counter-sanctions requirements. If the obligation by its nature does not fall under the decrees — if it is not a loan, a credit or a real estate transaction, but rather an ordinary commercial debt — the mechanism will work. In the abovementioned case involving the ICC award, the court rejected the debtor’s objections and recognized the assignment of the supply debt as valid.
However, there is a risk here that is specifically addressed in the Review. According to paragraph 8 of the Review, a violation of legislation on special economic measures that was not examined by the court during the proceedings may be classified as a newly discovered circumstance. This means that a debt recovery case dealt with through an assignment, and apparently concluded successfully, risks being reopened even after the court's decisions have taken effect.
Example
Paragraph 8 of Review No. 8/2026
The court of first instance had already substituted the foreign creditor with the assignee. Subsequently, the prosecutor’s office intervened in the case and requested a review of the ruling based on newly discovered circumstances, arguing that the assignment was made with the intent to circumvent Decree No. 322 and was therefore void under Article 10 and Article 168(2) of the Civil Code. The appellate court upheld the prosecutor’s position. A prosecutor has the right to intervene in a case at any stage, and an assignment may be declared invalid even after it has been approved by the court.
I would like to note that, in practice, for many foreign creditors the assignment must also comply with foreign sanctions requirements. The sanctions regulations of the US, the EU and the UK contain a number of provisions designed to prevent circumvention of prohibitions through the assignment of claims. Moreover, such an attempt may also be viewed as an aggravating factor that could lead to further sanctions against those involved.
What to Consider When Drafting Arbitration Clauses
Although the Review contains a large number of prohibitions, it also outlines what is currently permitted. Here is what you should consider when drafting arbitration clauses.
•
Determine in whose best interests you are drafting the arbitration clause. Strange as it may seem, a foreign client often benefits from a greater degree of “Russian-ness” if the award is to be later enforced in Russia. A Russian client, on the other hand, may sometimes benefit from the opposite approach (arbitration in an unfriendly jurisdiction), since if they win, the award can be enforced abroad. If they lose, however, the opposing party may (sometimes acting in bad faith) claim a violation of public policy and argue that enforcement of the award in Russia is impermissible.
•
Consider including additional provisions in the arbitration clause — requirements as to the nationality of the arbitrators, the seat of arbitration, the language of the proceedings and the applicable law.
•
Assess where a future award is most likely to be enforced and base your choice of arbitration centre and seat of arbitration on that assessment.
•
Check whether the obligation falls under any presidential decrees (loans, credits, transactions involving equity interests and real estate). Be cautious with assignments.
•
When planning to file a motion with a court for an anti-suit injunction, be aware of mirror restrictions in the EU and several other jurisdictions: the very act of filing a motion with a Russian court under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 may have adverse consequences abroad.
More than ever, the arbitration clause is evolving from a procedural provision in a contract into a fully-fledged tool for managing the parties’ business risks. Therefore, it is better to address it before a dispute arises, rather than after.
Sources
1
The wording of Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code and of the Review is also problematic: “foreign courts andinternational commercial arbitration tribunals located outside theterritory oftheRussian Federation.” It is unclear from this wording whether the reference is to the seat of arbitration or to the location of the arbitration centre.
2
For the same reason (the ambiguity of the wording in Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code and in the Review), the degree of risk will differ for disputes administered by arbitral institutions in friendly countries with the seat of arbitration in Russia (in cases permitted by law) and those abroad.
3
A similar comment applies here: the extent of risk will differ for disputes administered by arbitration centres in unfriendly countries but with the seat of arbitration in Russia (in cases permitted by law) and those abroad.
4
Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Moscow Region of 30 July 2026 in Case No. A41-46990/2026.
