International arbitration in 2025

Russian courts show no signs of softening their anti-arbitration approach when it comes to disputes with Russian sanctioned parties. Under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code (introduced in 2020), local courts can claim exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned parties if sanctions are deemed to impede access to justice in the contractual forum. Worse still, court practice is simply to assume that sanctions will prevent Russian companies from getting a fair decision in arbitration abroad. Article 248.2 enables the Russian courts to grant anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions prohibiting foreign partners from pursuing claims outside Russia. Such injunctions can be backed by draconian fines as much as the amount in dispute. The largest reported fine to date amounts to €14.3bn.

In 2024, Russian courts invoked Article 248 over 200 times to assume exclusive jurisdiction or issue anti-arbitration injunctions.

English courts

An anti-suit (and anti-anti-suit) injunction is a court order prohibiting a party from initiating or continuing foreign legal proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement and requiring those proceedings to be discontinued.

Several prominent international banks, including UniCredit, Deutsche Bank, and Commerzbank obtained anti-suit injunctions against RusChemAlliance, a subsidiary of Gazprom, prohibiting it from pursuing claims in Russia in aid of Paris-seated ICC arbitrations. Traditionally, English courts would only issue anti-suit injunctions in aid of arbitration seated in England. However, in this case, the courts held that the arbitration agreement was governed by English law, the governing law of the underlying bonds, satisfying the jurisdictional gateway for that relief (read our overview of the UK Supreme Court judgment in the UniCredit case). Upcoming amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996 are expected to change this position, likely stipulating that, in absence of an express choice of law, the law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat.

Other notable examples of English courts issuing anti-suit injunctions against Russian proceedings include Barclays Bank PLC v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 1074 (Comm) and Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v PJSC Transneft & Ors [2024] EWHC 1176 (Comm).

English anti-suit injunctions can be a valuable tool to resist the enforcement in other countries of adverse Russian judgments secured in violation of an arbitration agreement. While recognition of Russian judgments varies by jurisdiction, with some – like China – simplifying enforcement through bilateral treaties, an arbitral decision affirming the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement can be an even more powerful anti-enforcement measure. 

Other common law jurisdictions

Like their UK counterparts, the Hong Kong courts routinely award anti-suit injunctions. However, China's "neutral" stance toward Russia and concerns about judicial independence left uncertainty about how Hong Kong courts would handle cases involving Russian counter-sanctions. Nevertheless, the Hong Kong courts have now rendered at least two decisions in aid of arbitrations seated in Hong Kong in the face of Russian litigation under Article 248 (Linde GmbH and Linde Plc v RCA [2023] HKCFI 2409 and Bank A v Bank B [2024] HKCFI 2529). The Singapore and the US courts can also issue anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions where there is sufficient nexus.

German courts

Like most civil law jurisdictions, the German courts do not award enforceable anti-suit injunctions in aid of arbitration but do offer declaratory anti-suit relief. In 2024, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court dismissed an application for an anti-suit injunction against a Russian sanctioned entity that had sought an anti-arbitration injunction in Russia breaching the arbitration agreement (Case No I-26 W 7/24). Conversely, the Berlin Higher Regional Court awarded declaratory anti-suit relief against a sanctioned Russian entity in aid of a Swiss-seated, Swiss law-governed arbitration, affirming arbitration as the sole proper forum, excluding Russian courts (read our previous analysis on these cases: Case No 12 SchH 2/24 and Case No 12 SchH 5/22).

German courts can, in principle, extend their extra-territorial reach to support arbitrations seated outside Germany if a minimum territorial connection exists. The Berlin Higher Regional Court has so far adopted an expansive approach, recognizing that neither a German arbitral seat nor the choice of German law is required. A minimum territorial connection exists if the petitioner is German and there is a risk of domestic enforcement. Future cases are likely to further test the extra-territorial reach of the anti-suit relief mechanism.

Other important civil law arbitral seats: France and Switzerland

French and Swiss courts are not equipped to issue anti-suit injunctions or German-style declaratory anti-suit relief in support of arbitration agreements. In France, courts have recognized anti-suit injunctions issued abroad but do not grant such injunctions domestically. Similarly, while the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has not definitively ruled out the possibility of granting injunctions prohibiting foreign litigation, the prevailing view is that such measures are generally unavailable.

However, in most European countries, a Russian judgment secured in violation of a valid arbitration agreement is unlikely to be enforceable. Beyond traditional grounds for refusing recognition of foreign judgments – such as public policy or absence of jurisdiction of the issuing court – the 15th EU sanctions package (adopted in December 2024) specifically prohibits Member States from enforcing judgments and injunctions issued on the basis of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code. Notably, this restriction is not directly applicable to Switzerland.