Russian court recovers EUR7.5 billion penalty for anti-arbitration injunction violation in ECT arbitration (Commercial Court of Moscow)

In Russian Prosecutor General v Wintershall and others (Case No А40-92702/2025), the Commercial Court of Moscow (CCM) granted an application by the Russian Prosecutor General to recover EUR7.5 billion from a German investor, its counsel and the arbitral tribunal for violating an anti-arbitration injunction. The court also ruled that a DIFC Court order, granting an application for the recognition and enforcement of an anti-anti-suit injunction given by the tribunal in the arbitration, constituted an impermissible interference in the sovereign jurisdiction of Russia and its judicial system.

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

In September 2025, the CCM had granted the Russian Prosecutor General’s (RPG) application for final, permanent anti-arbitration injunctions restraining Wintershall, its counsel and the tribunal from continuing investment arbitration proceedings brought by Wintershall against Russia under the Energy Charter Treaty (see Legal update, Russian court grants final anti-arbitration injunction against claimant, counsel and tribunal in ECT arbitration).

After the CCM imposed its anti-arbitration injunction, the arbitral tribunal imposed an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI), directing Russia to discontinue the Russian court proceedings. Wintershall subsequently applied to the DIFC Court (UAE), as the court at the seat of arbitration, for recognition and enforcement of that AASI, which the DIFC Court granted.

The CCM found that the very issuance of procedural orders by the arbitral tribunal, which included not only the AASI but also subsequent directions and deadlines to Russia, constituted the continuation of the investment arbitration proceedings in deliberate violation of its injunction. This formed the basis for triggering a EUR7.5 billion penalty against Wintershall, its counsel and the tribunal.

Subsequently, the RPG sought clarification from the CCM on whether the DIFC Court order had been considered in its penalty ruling. The CCM, citing case law from the International Court of Justice, clarified that the DIFC Court order constituted an impermissible interference in the sovereign jurisdiction of Russia and its judicial system, thereby violating one of the principles of international law: the non-interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state.

The penalty ruling represents a new peak in the Wintershall v Russia arbitration and sanctions-era investment disputes, demonstrating a strict policy by Russian courts against AASIs granted by foreign courts and arbitral tribunals. The case is notable for the extraordinarily large financial penalties imposed by the CCM, posing direct risks to foreign investors and their counsel, and to tribunals, in investment arbitrations against Russia.

Case No. А40-92702/2025 (21 November 2025 and 28 November 2025) (in Russian language).

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

Reproduced from Practical Law Arbitration with the permission of the publishers. For further information visit www.practicallaw.com or call 020 7542 6664.