Russia's Supreme Court consolidates court practice on application of counter-sanctions legislation by Russian courts, including on questions of Russian court jurisdiction; anti-suit injunctions and the recognition of foreign judgments and awards

On June 17, 2026, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved Thematic Review No. 8/2026 on the Application by Arbitrazh (Commercial) Courts of Legislation on Special Economic Measures Enacted to Protect the National Interests of the Russian Federation  (the Review). 

The Review consolidates the Russian Supreme Court’s guidance on a broad range of issues arising under the counter-sanctions framework, which addresses so-called "unfriendly actions" by foreign States and international organisations. The Review covers, among other matters, questions of exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian courts, the application of anti-suit injunctions, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards in Russia as set out below.

The Review also covers the validity of certain transactions and assignment agreements, confirming that corporate and finance transaction, including assignments, may be found void if executed in violation of, or as a means of circumventing, Russian counter-sanctions regulations. 

Why is the Review relevant? 

Since February 2022, the Russian Federation has enacted a series of special economic measures — including Presidential Decrees Nos. 79, 81, 95 and 322 — in response to what it characterises as unfriendly actions by foreign states and international organisations. Although the Review is not exhaustive and does not address all counter-sanctions measures, it provides guidance aimed at ensuring a uniform approach by the Russian courts to disputes arising from the application of these measures by Russian courts and disputes with sanctioned parties or parties otherwise affected by Russian sanctions and counter-sanctions regulation. It therefore represents a useful direction for any party who may be affected by such measures.

Key Procedural Positions on Anti-Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction and Enforcement

Anti-suit injunctions

As a reminder, and as discussed in our earlier blog posts here and here, amendments to Russian procedural law introduced in 2020 allow parties affected by the Russian sanctions to apply to Russian courts for resolution of their disputes despite agreed foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. Such parties may also seek anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunctions (ASIs) from the Russian courts to restrain proceedings in foreign courts or arbitral tribunals under Article 248.2 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code (the APC). 

The Review clarifies that an application for an ASI under Article 248.2 of the APC is distinct from an ordinary statement of claim. The rules allowing a court to dismiss a claim without considering its merits - at a party’s request based on a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement - do not apply to ASI applications. Accordingly, a foreign party facing such an application cannot rely on an arbitration clause in the underlying agreement as a procedural basis to argue that the ASI application should be dismissed without consideration on the merits. 

The Review also reiterates that, under Article 248.2(10) of the APC, Russian courts may impose a judicial penalty — not exceeding the amount of the foreign claims and legal costs — on any party that breaches a prohibition on initiating or continuing foreign proceedings. This mechanism is intended to prevent actions in “unfriendly” States that “deprive sanctions-affected Russian persons of the opportunity to protect their rights”. The list of ‘unfriendly” States, defined as “foreign states and territories that commit unfriendly acts against the Russian Federation, Russian legal entities and individuals”, is approved by Government Directive No. 430-r dated 5 March, 2022, and includes the UK, the US, the EU, Singapore, and several other states. Such a penalty can impose serious coercive pressure on a party, particularly if there is exposure in Russia, such as assets against which any such penalty may be enforced. 

A recent example of the impact of a penalty under Article 248.2(10) of the APC is the case of UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 99, considered by the English court. The facts of the underlying dispute and the prior procedural history are covered in our earlier blogs (here, here and here). In short, in response to the English ASI obtained by the UniCredit, the respondent - RusChemAlliance LLC, obtained its own ASI from the Russian courts requiring UniCredit to take all measures within its control to set aside the English ASI or face a penalty of €250 million. Given the risk of this judicial penalty, Unicredit had no commercial alternative but to apply to the English Court of Appeal to revoke and vary the English ASI. 

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Russian courts 

Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Review address the interplay between arbitration clauses and the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts under Russian law. According to the Review, under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the APC, a dispute can be heard by the Russian court — notwithstanding an otherwise valid arbitration clause — where the dispute arises directly from the imposition of the Russian sanctions or where access to justice for one party (whether directly sanctioned or not), has become practically impossible.

The Supreme Court endorses a broad interpretation of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the APC when assessing the existence of sanctions and whether there are restrictions on “access to justice” sufficient to trigger the jurisdiction of Russian courts and justify the granting of an ASI: 

1. both targeted (individual) sanctions and more general restrictions (e.g., suspension of visa issuance preventing entry to a foreign forum state) may be sufficient grounds to disregard a contractually agreed dispute resolution clause; and 
2. "Obstacles to access to justice" are found to arise not only where it is objectively impossible to pursue claims outside Russia, but also where doing so would be unreasonable in terms of financial, time, reputational, or other costs. This may include increased legal fees, the unavailability of legal representation, difficulties in crossing borders, and challenges associated with the payment of arbitration costs.

This approach crystallises the practice of the lower courts, which have asserted jurisdiction over disputes involving Russian parties (or parties with Russian beneficial owners) who were not personally designated but were nevertheless considered by the courts to be affected by the broader application of sanctions. This includes reference to the application of sectoral sanctions or where the introduction of sanctions regimes was found to create obstacles to “access to justice”. Accordingly, such parties may also rely on Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the APC to overcome any pre-agreed dispute resolution clause. 

Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards 

There is a growing body of court practice concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Russia. However, the statistics demonstrate significant hurdles to recognition of awards in favour of creditors from ‘unfriendly’ States. The Review also signals a notably restrictive approach to the recognition and enforcement of such awards, notwithstanding Russia's international law obligations under the New York Convention 1958. 

Paragraph 19 of the Review confirms that Russian courts must refuse to recognise and enforce a foreign arbitral award where such enforcement would be contrary to Russian public policy.  In considering this question, the Supreme Court instructs lower courts to assess the broader social and economic consequences of enforcement, including the public significance of the award debtor and the risk of financial instability, as well as any adverse impact on employment and social stability in the region where the debtor operates. 

The Supreme Court also observes that the imposition of sanctions generally (rather than in respect of a party), “raises doubts as to whether a dispute will be heard in a foreign state in accordance with fair trial guarantees, including impartiality.” Accordingly, where arbitrators are nationals of “unfriendly” States, a lack of impartiality and objectivity may be presumed, unless rebutted by evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, the Supreme Court indicates that the enforcement of an award in favour of a party from an “unfriendly” State may constitute a violation of Russian public policy, particularly where such enforcement would contravene Russian counter-sanctions regulations or legislation governing enforcement proceedings (paragraph 20 of the Review). This approach appears to be applied irrespective of whether the award debtor is a designated party or is otherwise not personally affected by sanctions.

Conclusion

The Review represents a significant consolidation of Russia's judicial response to the counter-sanctions framework. For international practitioners, the key takeaways appear to be quite clear: 

• arbitration clauses offer diminishing protection against Russian court jurisdiction where a dispute arises following imposition of sanctions, or one party is subject to sanctions or can be characterised by the Russian courts as facing practical obstacles to accessing justice abroad;
• the presumption of arbitrator partiality based on nationality, together with the significantly broadened application of the public policy exception, further limits the prospects for enforcing foreign arbitral awards against sanctioned entities in Russia.

Taken together, the positions articulated in this Review reflect a sustained and systematic judicial trend toward repatriating disputes involving Russian parties (both sanctioned and non-sanctioned parties, as well as disputes where Russian involvement is present more generally) into the Russian court system — a development that practitioners advising on cross-border matters with a Russian nexus cannot afford to overlook.