Russian court declines to hear claim of major state-owned bank because of existence of arbitration agreement (Commercial Court of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region)

In Case No A56-24289/2025, the Commercial Court of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (the Russian court) declined to hear the claim of the PJSC VTB Bank (VTB) against JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (JPM) because of the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

Authors: Maxim Kulkov (Managing partner) and Anna Domnikova (Junior associate), KK&P Trial Lawyers

The dispute arose out of obligations under a banking agreement between VTB and JPM, which contained an LCIA arbitration clause. VTB applied to the Russian court, thereby circumventing the arbitration clause by bringing a tort claim.

As a defensive measure in response to VTB’s actions, the English court issued an anti-suit injunction (ASI), restraining VTB from continuing proceedings in the Russian courts. VTB appealed the English court’s judgment, and the Russian proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of that appeal.

After VTB’s appeal was dismissed, the Russian court resumed consideration of the case.

However, unexpectedly, the Russian court:

• Granted JPM’s motion to leave the claim without consideration (that is, to refrain from hearing the merits).
• Stated that it lacked jurisdiction because of the presence of a valid and enforceable LCIA arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the fact that VTB is a major state-owned bank subject to sanctions.

This case is notable as it does not fully align with the general approach of Russian courts, which often assert exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned parties.

On the one hand, this outcome may be explained by the fact that VTB did not object against JPM’s motion to leave the claim without consideration, which, in our view, may have been influenced by the risk of liability for breaching the English court’s ASI.

On the other hand, as in Case No A12-22543/2022, Russian courts may not take into account the Russian party’s position on the issue of exclusive jurisdiction and may assert exclusive jurisdiction over a dispute on their own initiative, citing the need to protect the rights of the Russian party to the dispute (see Legal update, Russian court assumes jurisdiction even where Russian defendant confirmed no obstacles to justice in LCIA arbitration (Commercial Court of the Volga Circuit)).

Therefore, despite the possible “internal motives” behind this decision, it may still be regarded as supportive of arbitration.

Case No A56-24289/2025 (19 June 2026) (in Russian language).

You can find the link to the full text of the article here or download the pdf of the article here.

The PDF files are reproduced from Practical Law Arbitration with the permission of the publisher. For further information, please visit www.practicallaw.com or call +44 (0)20 7542 6664.