Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Circuit upholds dismissal of a Russian party’s claim in favour of ICC arbitration

While the trend in Russian courts has generally been unfavourable to parties seeking to enforce arbitration agreements, opportunities to have Russian court proceedings dismissed in favour of arbitration still remain in certain circumstances. A recent case in which KK&P represented a German bank in Russian courts demonstrates that, where the relevant circumstances are properly established, it is still possible to obtain the dismissal of a claim brought before a Russian court on the basis of an arbitration agreement.

Recently, the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Circuit (the Court) issued a judgment in Case No. A40-251326/2025, concerning a dispute between PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim (a Sibur subsidiary) (NKNK) and Bayerische Landesbank. The Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts leaving the claim without consideration due to the parties’ agreement to resolve their disputes under ICC Arbitration Rules, with the seat of arbitration in London.

The Court confirmed that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that there were no grounds to apply Article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code. The Court noted that:

• NKNK was not subject to personal or sectoral sanctions (despite NKNK’s speculations that the sanctions imposed on Russian persons (in general) affect NKNK’s access to justice in the ICC);
• NKNK had not provided evidence of any actual or significant difficulties in pursuing the arbitration in the agreed forum (while the foreign party initially bears the burden of showing there are no obstacles to access to justice, once they provide sufficient evidence of this, the burden shifts to the Russian party to prove otherwise. In this case, NKNK failed to do so.);
• NKNK’s arguments, concerning access to justice, were largely speculative. In particular, NKNK had not even attempted to commence arbitration under the agreed arbitration clauses and, therefore, had not demonstrated that it would in fact face obstacles in doing so;
• the ICC had been included by the Russian Ministry of Justice in the list of foreign arbitral institutions recognised as permanently operating arbitral institutions (PDAU). The Court held that the ICC’s status as a PDAU confirms that its arbitration rules provide the safeguards required under Russian law to ensure the independence and impartiality of arbitrators and the fairness of arbitration proceedings.

The latter point is particularly noteworthy against the background of earlier Russian court practice. In Case No. A40-180254/2024, the court was faced with a similar argument concerning the status of the VIAC as a PDAU. The court, however, expressly stated that it found no grounds to leave the claim without consideration. The approach taken in this case therefore appears to place greater weight on the institution’s PDAU status when assessing the availability of safeguards for independent and impartial arbitration.

The Court, therefore, left the first-instance and appellate judgments unchanged and dismissed NKNK’s cassation appeal.

It is unlikely that this case will, in and of itself, signal a broader shift in the approach of the Russian courts, particularly in light of the position recently expressed by the Russian Supreme Court in its latest review of court practice (see https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/russian-supreme-court-reviews-judicial-practice-in-sanctions-disputes for more detail). Nevertheless, the case reinforces the importance of raising and properly substantiating the relevant objections and demonstrates that Russian court proceedings may still be dismissed in favour of foreign arbitration.

See the full text of the judgment in Russian and in English.