Russian Supreme Court publishes review of court cases on sanctions-related disputes
On 19 June 2026, the Russian Supreme Court (SC) published Review No 8/2026 on sanctions-related disputes (Review), which includes several important provisions that may restrict access to arbitration with Russian parties.
Authors: Maxim Kulkov (Managing partner) and Maria Ivanova (Associate), KK&P Trial Lawyers
The Review notes that, if a dispute is connected with sanctions or if a party faces obstacles to access to justice because of sanctions, the Russian courts may assert jurisdiction. Previously, the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction notwithstanding, an arbitration agreement were applied only if the applicant faced obstacles to access to justice in a foreign court or arbitral tribunal.
The alternative “or” reading conflicts with article 248.1(4) of the Commercial Procedural Code and may make it more difficult for foreign defendants to rely on the absence of obstacles to justice. Under the new interpretation, even if there is access to justice, but the dispute relates to sanctions, the Russian court may exercise exclusive jurisdiction.
The Review also states that enforcement of an award in favour of an “unfriendly” entity may violate Russian public policy if it violates anti-sanctions or enforcement proceedings rules. Recent amendments to the Law on Enforcement Proceedings require award creditors to provide a Russian bank account number, meaning that, absent this, the court may refuse enforcement. However, even if a Russian bank account is opened, this may itself cause payment problems because special payment procedures apply to companies from “unfriendly” states, including restrictions on transfers abroad and, sometimes, the need to use special accounts with limited grounds for debiting funds.
Also, the SC has established a broad and abstract presumption of a lack of tribunal impartiality where a tribunal comprises arbitrators from “unfriendly” states. It is unclear whether all or only one tribunal member must satisfy this description, and how nationality is identified (by passport or place of residence).
The Review summarises relevant case law, indicating:
- Which controversial positions adopted by lower courts the SC has endorsed.
- The SC’s likely future approach to similar disputes.
However, surprisingly, the most important of recent cases are not reflected in the Review. The SC does not even mention its own positions in the Citibank and JPM cases (Case Nos A40-167352/2023 and A40-194447/2023 (2025)), which supported foreign defendants in Russian court proceedings. In practice, the SC will allow foreign parties to continue to refer to these positions. However, the SC has reserved an option to swiftly change its approach if required by the economic and political landscape.
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.