Russian court may assume exclusive jurisdiction despite objections by Russian party (Eleventh Commercial Appellate Court of Russia)

In Case No A55-10205/2026, the Eleventh Commercial Appellate Court of Russia ruled that a Russian court may assume exclusive jurisdiction over a dispute, even if the Russian party is the defendant and objects to the case being considered in the Russian courts.

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

The dispute concerned a ship insurance contract between Seadar Ship Management SA, a company registered in the Marshall Islands (SSM), and joint-stock company United Insurance Company (UIC), a Russian company.

SSM filed a claim under article 248.1 of the Russian Commercial Procedural Code (Lugovoy Law) despite a prorogation clause in favour of the Norwegian courts. UIC objected to Russian exclusive jurisdiction, arguing that there were no obstacles to access to justice before the Norwegian courts.

The first instance court rejected SSM’s claim, holding that article 248.1 did not apply because SSM was a foreign company not affected by sanctions and it had not shown that UIC faced obstacles to justice before the contractually agreed courts.

SSM lodged an appeal with the Court against the first instance decision.

The Court overturned the first instance decision and ruled that:

• Russian courts may apply the Lugovoy Law ex officio despite an arbitration or prorogation clause.
• Article 248.1 protects Russian parties whether they are claimants or defendants.
• A dispute may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian courts if the Russian party cannot prove access to justice in a foreign court or arbitral tribunal.

The Court therefore held that the Russian courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute, considering the absence of evidence that UIC could access justice abroad.

Although, in this case, the claim was filed with the Court in circumvention of the prorogation clause, the Court’s reasoning is of general application to both prorogation and arbitration clauses. The judgment is notable for building on the conclusions reached in Case No A12-22543/2022 (see Legal update, Russian court assumes jurisdiction even where Russian defendant confirmed no obstacles to justice in LCIA arbitration) and shows that, although article 248.1 was intended to safeguard Russian parties seeking such protection, it is now increasingly used to provide mandatory protection that courts may apply on their own initiative, even over a Russian party’s objection.

Moreover, Russian courts will presume the existence of obstacles to access to justice by default, so the interested party must be proactive in proving that it does have access to justice elsewhere.

Case No A55-10205/2026 (3 July 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.