Sanctions and foreign arbitration: Articles 248.1–248.2

Three separate questions

First, may a Russian commercial court decide the merits? Second, may it restrain a specified person from starting or continuing foreign proceedings? Third, is an existing award recognisable and enforceable? An answer to one does not replace assessment of the others.

Statutory basis: Article 248.1 and Article 248.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code. These are special Russian procedural provisions, not a general prohibition on overseas arbitration. The clause, particular restrictive measures and procedural stage require individual assessment.

When exclusive jurisdiction becomes relevant

Article 248.1(1) covers its specified categories of disputes involving persons subject to restrictive measures and disputes based on those measures. Paragraph 2 defines protected persons, including its specified categories of foreign legal entities.

First consider an applicable treaty and agreement choosing a foreign court or arbitration. Paragraph 4 addresses agreements rendered incapable of performance by restrictive measures that obstruct access to justice. A foreign institution’s address or an adverse outcome alone is insufficient. Paragraph 3 conditions, including an already pending identical foreign dispute, need separate examination.

Presumed obstacles and limits

Case law: Supreme Court 9 December 2021, 309-ES21-6955(1–3) treated personal restrictive measures against a Russian participant as presumptively sufficient to establish impaired access. Do not rewrite that holding as requiring documentary proof of impossibility for every procedural act in all cases.

However, Constitutional Court 29 April 2025, 999-O, section 2 expressly rejected automatic application in every dispute involving a sanctioned party. Measures, parties, agreement, remedy and conduct must be considered together. The 2025 explanation should accompany references to the 2021 position.

Applying for a restraint

Statutory basis: Article 248.2(1)–(4). The applicant applies to the regional commercial court at its own address or residence. Identify pending proceedings or evidence of threatened proceedings, the specific claims, Russian-jurisdiction grounds and statutory attachments.

Demand letters, notices of arbitration, claims, the clause, sanctions instruments and evidence of obstacles identify the actual proceeding and relief sought. The order binds the specified person; it is not an instruction from the Russian court to a foreign arbitral institution.

Monetary consequence and appeal

Under Article 248.2(10), on request the court may award a sum payable for non-compliance. Fairness, proportionality and prevention of benefit from bad faith apply, with a statutory ceiling tied to foreign claims and court costs. Sanctions alone do not automatically trigger payment.

A grant or refusal may be challenged in the commercial circuit court within one month of issuance under paragraph 9. Review of interim measures and their duration are separate from final determination of the application.

When arbitration has already concluded

In Uraltransmash, the Supreme Court changed the lower courts’ reasoning but itself refused the restraint and monetary sum: the SCC had already issued its award and concluded proceedings. It was not a granted anti-suit injunction.

Constitutional Court 14 October 2025, 2615-O, sections 2–3 addressed attempts to extend the mechanism to enforcement after foreign proceedings had concluded. Timing, actual obstacles, good faith, both parties’ position and the award’s effects matter. The complaint was inadmissible; the Court neither restrained enforcement nor annulled the award.

Recognition and preparing a position

Article 248.1(5) does not prevent recognition of a decision on the protected person’s own claim, or where it did not object to the overseas proceedings, including not seeking a restraint. General recognition requirements remain applicable.

Conversely, sanctions or a Russian application do not replace objections under New York Convention Article V. Explain the relevant refusal ground and supporting evidence rather than seeking a new merits hearing. See foreign awards and annulment and refusal.

Identify the parties and measures, read the clause, reconstruct the procedural chronology, choose the precise remedy, check venue and evidence, then assess the intended enforcement country separately. This sequence avoids conflating remedies.

Overseas protection of the clause: UniCredit and competing restraints

UniCredit v RusChemAlliance, UKSC 30 (2024) shows another side of the cross-border conflict: an English injunction against a Russian company’s pursuit of Russian proceedings was preserved in support of an ICC clause seated in Paris. The UKSC issue was English jurisdiction, not liability under the bond or recognition of an award.

Assess Russian jurisdiction, foreign agreement law, the foreign court’s jurisdiction over the addressee and coercive remedies separately. One country’s injunction does not automatically annul another’s order. Compare this case’s agreement-law reasoning with section 6A and the 2025 transition discussed in the applicable-law guide.