International arbitration is often presented as a flexible, efficient, and enforceable way to resolve complex cross-border disputes. Its appeal is strongest where parties want a forum outside either side's home courts, a procedure that can be adapted to the dispute, and an award capable of recognition and enforcement abroad.
In recent years, Russia-related disputes have tested some of international arbitrations basic assumptions. Under the Lugovoy L, Russian courts have frequently issued anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunctions restraining foreign-seated arbitral proceedings, adding cost and delay; penalties have been imposed, or threatened, not only against parties to arbitration, but also against counsel and, in some cases, arbitrators themselves; and arbitrators have faced challenges based on social media activity and comments on professional blogs.
These issues were discussed in a panel titled "Interim Measures, Arbitrator Challenges, Personal Liability: How Russia is Testing the Limits of International Arbitration" at the VYAP Ukraine Launch event on 25 June 2026.
This post recaps the case law that was brought up at the event, namely:
- National Joint Stock Company "Naftogaz of Ukraine" JSC v Gazprom PJSC - Article 248 anti-arbitration and anti-enforcement orders, Swiss set-aside proceedings, and AIFC recognition in Kazakhstan.
- Wintershall Dea GmbH v. Russian Federation (II) and Russian Prosecutor General's Office v. Wintershall Dea GmbH and others - Russian anti-arbitration orders directed at the claimant, counsel, and arbitrators, plus challenges to arbitrators inside the PCA proceedings.
- Oschadbank v. Russian Federation (I) - revision award annulled over arbitrator's amicus brief against Russia.
- Rinat Akhmetov and Investio LLC v. Russian Federation (I) - challenges to the arbitrators and to the way the tribunal president was appointed; the Paris Court of Appeal set aside the jurisdiction award.
- JSC DTEK Krymenergo v. Russian Federation - Russia-related Crimea arbitration where, after Alexandrov disclosed the Eiser annulment decision, Russia demanded his resignation or removal and later challenged the remaining co-arbitrators.
- NV Reibel v JSC VO Stankoimport - Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 and AG Biondi's treatment of arbitrability, EU public policy, and the scope of the no-claims clause.
The panel brought together Pavlo Byelousov of Bono Legal, Oleksandr Kushch of Naftogaz of Ukraine, Oleksii Maslov of AVELLUM and the Ukrainian Arbitration Association, Prof. Volodymyr Nahnybida of the ICAC at the UCCI, Vasylyna Odnorih of the LCIA, and Ivan Yavnych of Vasil Kisil & Partners as moderator.
Special thanks are also due to the Ukraine VYAP team behind the launch: Veronika Hodlevska and Valeriia Yakimova of Asters, Yulia Adamovych and Ivan Yavnych of Vasil Kisil & Partners, and Volodymyr Nakonechnyi of ARZINGER.
Case 1. Naftogaz v Gazprom
National Joint Stock Company "Naftogaz of Ukraine" JSC v Gazprom PJSC arose under the 2019 agreement on the transportation of natural gas between Naftogaz and Gazprom. Naftogaz commenced ICC arbitration in September 2022. Gazprom wrote to the ICC contesting the arbitration agreement and jurisdiction, but then did not participate in the arbitration. In June 2025, the tribunal issued a final award in Naftogaz's favour. The award exceeded USD 1.4 billion in debt, interest, and arbitration costs.
Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 8 June 2020 (also known as Lugovoy law) introduced a jurisdiction mechanism for disputes involving restrictive measures against Russian parties. Article 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code allows Russian commercial courts to assert exclusive jurisdiction where those measures allegedly affect access to justice for a Russian party. Article 248.2 allows a covered party to seek an order prohibiting the initiation or continuation of foreign litigation or arbitration. The Russian court may impose a monetary sanction for non-compliance, capped by the amount claimed in the foreign proceeding plus legal costs.
Gazprom relied on that mechanism before the St. Petersburg Commercial Court. The Russian court first granted Gazprom an injunction aimed at stopping the ICC arbitration; in April 2025, it raised the penalty for alleged breach of that injunction from USD 150 million to more than USD 1.3 billion. On 6 August 2025, the court prohibited Naftogaz from seeking recognition or enforcement of the ICC award outside Russia and from continuing foreign proceedings connected with the arbitration (1,2).
The anti-arbitration injunction did not prevent the Zurich-seated ICC arbitration from continuing. After the final award, Gazprom applied to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court to set aside the award; the Swiss court dismissed that application after holding that Gazprom had forfeited procedural objections it could have raised during the arbitration (1,2).
In the set-aside proceedings, Gazprom argued that the tribunal had been improperly constituted. It challenged Naftogaz-appointed co-arbitrator Olle Flygt and tribunal president Urs Weber-Stecher on impartiality grounds because Flygt was Swedish and Weber-Stecher was Swiss.
Russia's Government Directive No. 430-r of 5 March 2022 approved a list of foreign states and territories designated as committing "unfriendly actions" against Russia; Sweden was covered through the listing of EU Member States, and Switzerland was listed separately (1,2).
As to Weber-Stecher, Gazprom also relied on alleged connections with one of Naftogaz's counsel and on statements and social-media reactions concerning the Russia-Ukraine war.
In decision 4A_359/2025, the Swiss Supreme Court applied Article 182(4) of the Swiss Private International Law Act, which requires a party to raise procedural objections as soon as it knows, or should know, of the alleged defect. Because Gazprom had received procedural updates but had not challenged the tribunal composition during the arbitration, the court held that Gazprom could not reserve those objections for a post-award set-aside application.
Related Article 248 example. The speakers also referred to Google LLC v. NAO Tsargrad Media. Tsargrad sued Google in the Russian courts and relied on Article 248.1 as the basis for exclusive Russian jurisdiction, despite a clause in the Google Terms requiring disputes relating to those terms to be brought in the federal or state courts in Santa Clara County, California (1,2).
The Russian court ordered Google to restore Tsargrad's account and imposed a compounding monetary penalty, or astreinte, for non-compliance. After Google did not restore access, the astreinte continued to accrue; the record before the Northern District of California identified the amount as no less than twenty decillion dollars, or a 2 followed by 34 zeroes.
The court rejected Tsargrad's reliance on Article 248.1. It held that the provision made the Santa Clara County forum clause unenforceable in Russian courts, but did not prevent Tsargrad from bringing the dispute in California. On that basis, the court found that Google was likely to show that Tsargrad breached the forum clause by suing in Russia. (1,2).
Kazakhstan enforcement. On 15 May 2026, the AIFC Court made a without-notice order recognising and enforcing the ICC award. Gazprom was given 14 days after service to apply to have the order set aside, and the order could not be enforced until that period expired or any timely set-aside application was resolved (1,2).
On 25 May 2026, Kazakh Justice Minister Erlan Sarsembayev gave a jurisdictional explanation for the government's position that the AIFC order would not be enforced: Gazprom was not an AIFC participant, the transaction did not pass through the AIFC, AIFC law did not govern the dispute, and the parties had not agreed to submit recognition and enforcement matters to the AIFC Court.
The speakers also referred to Posco Co. Ltd. v Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management "National Centre for Complex Processing of Mineral Raw Materials of the Republic of Kazakhstan". In that case, Justice Sir Rupert Jackson addressed the AIFC Court's jurisdiction over a foreign ICC award unconnected with the AIFC. He dismissed the enforcement claim for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the AIFC Court could not enforce a Zurich-seated ICC award where the parties and dispute fell outside Article 13 of the AIFC Constitutional Statute and Article 14.4 did not extend jurisdiction to foreign non-AIAC awards (1,2).
Case 2. Wintershall Dea v Russia and the Russian Prosecutor General Proceedings
Wintershall Dea GmbH v. Russian Federation (II), PCA Case No. 2024-42, is an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration administered by the PCA under the UNCITRAL Rules. Wintershall Dea started the arbitration alleging expropriation of its interests in Russian oil and gas assets through Presidential Decrees No. 965 and No. 966 of 19 December 2023, including interests in the Yuzhno-Russkoye field and the Achimov projects at the Urengoy field (1,2).
The Russian court proceedings targeted the PCA arbitration. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office sought to restrain the PCA arbitration through proceedings before the Commercial Court of Moscow, Case No. A40-92702/2025-56-674, relying on Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code (1,2).
The Moscow court ordered the claimant, its representatives, the presiding arbitrator, and the claimant-appointed arbitrator to refrain from continuing or supporting the PCA arbitration, under threat of a EUR 7.5 billion penalty (1,2).
Arbitrator challenges. Russia also challenged tribunal members in the PCA arbitration. It first challenged Funke Adekoya SAN and Charles Poncet, arguing that a paragraph in a procedural order on interim measures showed prejudgment of jurisdiction under the Energy Charter Treaty. The appointing authority dismissed the challenge, treating the order as a prima facie interim-measures assessment rather than a final ruling on jurisdiction.
Russia later challenged Poncet again, this time relying on the Rockhopper annulment and alleging that it showed unsuitability for investor-state cases and a tendency to let personal experience with state-court proceedings produce bias or prejudgment. That second challenge was also rejected.
Russia then challenged all three tribunal members over alleged bias and due process concerns in the tribunal's case-management decisions. That third challenge was dismissed on 20 February 2026.
Case 3. Oschadbank v Russia
Oschadbank v. Russian Federation (I), PCA Case No. 2016-14, was a Paris-seated investment arbitration under the 1998 Russia-Ukraine BIT. Oschadbank sought compensation for banking assets lost in Crimea. The tribunal issued its 2018 award in Oschadbank's favour, with damages of USD 1,111,300,729.
In the French annulment proceedings, Russia first obtained annulment of the award for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis: in March 2021, the Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award on that ground. In December 2022, the French Court of Cassation overturned that judgment and sent the case back to the Paris Court of Appeal.
In the renewed proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal, Russia relied on four Article 1520 grounds: lack of jurisdiction, breach of international public policy, failure by the tribunal to fulfil its mandate, and lack of independence or impartiality of co-arbitrator Charles N. Brower.
Russia argued that co-arbitrator Charles N. Brower lacked impartiality because he had filed a 2024 amicus curiae brief in United States proceedings to enforce the Yukos awards. Russia's argument, as set out in the Paris Court of Appeal's 23 June 2026 judgment, was that Brower had supported the former Yukos shareholders, criticised Russia's procedural conduct with language including "destructive" and "abusive", and revealed an anti-Russian predisposition.
The Paris Court of Appeal rejected that argument for the 2018 award because the amicus filing post-dated the award; Russia therefore had not established that Brower lacked independence or impartiality when the tribunal rendered it. The July 2025 judgment granted exequatur to the award under Article 1527 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
On 23 June 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal annulled Oschadbank's 11 December 2023 revision award after finding that Brower's 2024 Yukos amicus brief created reasonable doubts as to impartiality. The court also annulled the 19 June 2024 costs award as a consequence, because it was linked to the revision award.
Case 4. Akhmetov and Investio v Russia
Rinat Akhmetov and Investio LLC v. Russian Federation (I), PCA Case No. 2019-34, was later challenged in French annulment proceedings on tribunal constitution and arbitrator impartiality. The tribunal consisted of Siegfried H. Elsing as president, Andreas Bucher as claimant-appointed arbitrator, and Raul Emilio Vinuesa Alsina as respondent-side arbitrator.
Russia initiated French annulment proceedings in November 2022 against the tribunal's 16 August 2022 jurisdiction award. The Paris Court of Appeal heard argument on 15 September 2025 and issued its decision on 15 January 2026 (1,2).
Before the Paris Court of Appeal, Russia advanced two categories of arguments: first, that the tribunal president had been appointed through an irregular departure from the parties' agreed ranking process; and second, that circumstances called into question the independence or impartiality of Professors Andreas Bucher and Siegfried H. Elsing (1,2).
For Professor Bucher, Russia relied on his short comment on an EAPIL blog post about refugee children from Ukraine. The comment thanked the author for the information and asked why the post did not mention the 1954 Geneva Convention on refugees. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected that comment as evidence of bias or an anti-Russia position.
For Professor Elsing, Russia relied on a public statement by Orrick, his law firm, condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine and stating that the firm would not undertake new work for Russian-linked entities. Orrick issued the statement while the arbitration was pending. Russia also relied on social-media likes connected to posts by, or about, a Ukrainian diplomat and criticism of Russia. The Paris Court of Appeal noted that some of those likes had been deleted.
The Paris Court of Appeal accepted Russia's argument that the tribunal president had been appointed irregularly. The parties had agreed by correspondence to rank candidates for the president's role. After two candidates became unavailable, the claimants sought to leave that arrangement and use the appointment procedure that would otherwise apply under the UNCITRAL Rules. The Paris Court of Appeal held that the claimants could not abandon the agreed ranking process unilaterally and annulled the jurisdiction award.
Case 5. DTEK Krymenergo v Russia
JSC DTEK Krymenergo v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2018-41, was an UNCITRAL arbitration under the 1998 Ukraine-Russia BIT concerning Krymenergo's assets in Crimea. DTEK filed the request for arbitration on 16 February 2018. After Russia declined to appoint an arbitrator, the appointing authority appointed Professor Vladimir Pavic, and Rowley and Pavic appointed Stanimir A. Alexandrov as presiding arbitrator.
Alexandrov disclosed the Eiser annulment decision and his relationship with Carlos Lapuerta on 12 June 2020. Russia then stated that Alexandrov should "resign or be removed", asked the co-arbitrators questions, requested that the hearing be adjourned and the proceedings stayed, and said it would not participate in further hearing preparation.
The disclosure concerned the ICSID ad hoc committee's conclusion that the Eiser tribunal had not been properly constituted because of Alexandrov's relationship with Carlos Lapuerta, who had acted as the claimants' expert in Eiser. Alexandrov resigned on 21 June 2020. On 29 June 2020, Rowley and Pavic appointed Juan Fernandez-Armesto as the new presiding arbitrator, and Russia filed a notice of challenge against Rowley and Pavic the same day.
The award records DTEK's costs position that Russia's challenges to Alexandrov, Rowley, and Pavic delayed the hearing by 15 months. The challenge against Rowley and Pavic was later dismissed; the tribunal continued with Fernandez-Armesto as presiding arbitrator.
Case 6. Reibel v Stankoimport
NV Reibel v JSC VO Stankoimport, Case C-802/24, arose from a Stockholm-seated arbitration between Belgian supplier Reibel and Russian buyer Stankoimport. After Belgian authorities refused an export licence under EU sanctions rules, the tribunal dismissed Stankoimport's damages claim under Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 but ordered repayment of an advance payment plus interest; the Svea Court of Appeal then referred questions to the CJEU on arbitrability, EU public policy, and the scope of the no-claims clause.
The Russian Arbitration Association filed an amicus brief arguing for a narrow reading of Article 11: arbitration should not be excluded, any restriction should operate at the satisfaction or enforcement stage, and repayment of advance payments should remain outside the prohibition because it restores the pre-contractual position. The RAA contrasted that narrow reading with a broader interpretation of Article 11, which it said could have "significant negative consequences for the EU, particularly as a seat for arbitration".
AG Biondi's Opinion accepted that Article 11 does not prevent parties from submitting covered claims to arbitration. But that acceptance has limited practical effect: in the AG's view, a tribunal may receive the claim, but satisfaction cannot be obtained if the claim is caught by the no-claims clause; any award must also remain subject to judicial review for compliance with EU public policy.
On advance payments, the AG's answer cuts against the RAA's restitution argument. In his view, Stankoimport's claim for repayment of the advance plus interest, where performance failed because of Regulation 833/2014, is a claim that must not be satisfied under Article 11(1).