In June 2026, the Russian Supreme Court published Thematic Review No. 8/2026, consolidating judicial practice on counter-sanctions disputes under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code (APC RF). The review clarifies when Russian commercial courts may assert exclusive jurisdiction over sanctions-related claims and when anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunctions – carrying financial penalties up to the full claim amount – may be imposed. International companies with outstanding invoices, pending enforcement proceedings, or active arbitration clauses involving Russian counterparties face material procedural risks and should reassess their litigation strategy without delay.
What Changed and When
The legislative framework has been in place since amendments to the APC RF introduced Articles 248.1 and 248.2, but its application remained inconsistent across regional Arbitrazh courts for several years. Two developments have now sharpened the landscape significantly.
On 29 April 2025, the Russian Constitutional Court issued Ruling No. 999-O, which clarified that the exclusive jurisdiction mechanism under Article 248.1 is not automatic. A Russian party seeking to invoke it must demonstrate that real, concrete obstacles to access to justice exist – for instance, that a foreign court or arbitral tribunal has been paralysed by sanctions-related restrictions preventing effective participation. A mere assertion of unfairness is insufficient.
Then, in June 2026, the Supreme Court of Russia published Thematic Review No. 8/2026 – a consolidated digest of Arbitrazh court decisions on counter-sanctions disputes. This type of review carries significant practical weight in Russia: lower courts treat it as authoritative guidance, and deviating from its positions creates appellate risk. The review addresses, in particular, how debt collection claims, unpaid invoice disputes, and enforcement of judgment proceedings interact with the counter-sanctions regime.
The Two Core Provisions: Articles 248.1 and 248.2 APC RF
Article 248.1 empowers Russian Arbitrazh courts to assert exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving a Russian party that is subject to foreign restrictive measures (sanctions), provided the party can show real obstacles to pursuing or defending the claim abroad. Once exclusive jurisdiction is established, a foreign judgment or arbitral award in the same matter risks non-recognition in Russia.
Article 248.2 goes further: it allows a Russian party to apply for an anti-suit injunction or anti-arbitration injunction prohibiting the foreign party from continuing or commencing proceedings outside Russia. Non-compliance with such an injunction triggers a financial penalty that may be set up to the full amount of the underlying claim. This mechanism has direct implications for asset freezing strategies and the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards against Russian-domiciled assets.
Together, these provisions create a procedural environment in which a creditor pursuing debt collection in a Western court or international arbitration may simultaneously face a Russian injunction, a penalty equal to the disputed amount, and a parallel Arbitrazh court proceeding that could pre-empt a foreign payment order.
Who Is Affected
The practical reach of Articles 248.1 and 248.2, as interpreted in Thematic Review No. 8/2026, extends to a broad class of cross-border commercial relationships. International companies should pay particular attention if they:
- hold an unpaid invoice or overdue receivable from a Russian counterparty that is itself subject to Western sanctions;
- are pursuing or contemplating debt collection through ICC, LCIA, SCC or any other foreign arbitral institution;
- have obtained a foreign court judgment and are seeking enforcement of judgment against Russian assets or Russian-based entities;
- are respondents in Arbitrazh proceedings initiated under Article 248.1 by a Russian counterparty disputing the same contract;
- rely on late payment interest provisions under a contract governed by English, German, or other foreign law, where the Russian party may argue the obligation cannot be met due to sanctions;
- have pending Government Commission approvals linked to cross-border transactions involving Russian residents – since Government Commission decisions interact with the sanctions exception framework applied by Arbitrazh courts.
Non-Russian companies that are themselves listed on Russian counter-sanctions registers may face an additional layer of procedural exposure, as Russian courts may treat their access to Russian enforcement mechanisms as conditionally restricted.
What Constitutional Court Ruling No. 999-O Means in Practice
Ruling No. 999-O (29 April 2025) is relevant for any foreign party contesting the invocation of Article 248.1. The Constitutional Court's position – that real obstacles must be demonstrated – gives foreign creditors an argument: if their chosen forum (for example, a recognised international arbitration seat) continues to function and is accessible to both parties, the Russian party cannot rely on a mere sanctions listing to displace jurisdiction.
However, the practical threshold for what constitutes a "real obstacle" remains subject to interpretation by individual Arbitrazh courts, and Thematic Review No. 8/2026 has not, based on available information, set a fixed evidentiary standard. Companies should assume that Arbitrazh courts will exercise discretion and that each case will turn on its specific procedural and commercial facts. Engaging a lawyer in Russia with Arbitrazh court experience at an early stage is therefore critical to shaping the record before a jurisdictional challenge crystallises.
Immediate Action Items for International Companies
Based on the framework established by Thematic Review No. 8/2026 and the Constitutional Court's guidance, the following steps are advisable for companies with Russian commercial exposure:
- Audit active disputes and pending claims. Identify all proceedings – whether in arbitration, foreign national courts, or pre-litigation – that involve a Russian counterparty potentially subject to sanctions. Assess whether an Article 248.2 injunction application is a realistic threat in each matter.
- Review arbitration and jurisdiction clauses. In existing contracts, consider whether current dispute resolution provisions remain viable or whether they create a route for the Russian party to invoke counter-sanctions jurisdiction before a Russian Arbitrazh court.
- Preserve evidence of real access to justice. If you are pursuing foreign arbitration, document that the chosen tribunal is accessible to both parties and that no sanctions rule prevents the Russian counterparty from participating. This supports the argument that Article 248.1 conditions are not met.
- Monitor any Arbitrazh filings in Russia. Russian procedural rules do not require prior notice to commence proceedings under Article 248.1 in all circumstances. Companies should establish a monitoring protocol for new filings that could affect their contractual relationships.
- Coordinate with Government Commission requirements. Where transactions involve payments subject to Government Commission approval, ensure that the procedural posture of any dispute is consistent with the approved (or pending) transaction structure.
If you are concerned about a specific unpaid invoice or an active debt collection matter involving a Russian counterparty, our team can assess the jurisdictional risk profile of your situation. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to arrange an initial consultation.
Interaction with Asset Freezing and Enforcement Strategy
One of the more consequential aspects of the consolidated review is its guidance on asset freezing measures and enforcement of foreign judgments. Where a foreign creditor has obtained an interim freezing order against Russian assets in a Western jurisdiction, a Russian counterparty may respond by seeking an anti-suit injunction under Article 248.2, which – if granted – creates a penalty exposure for the foreign party equivalent to the frozen amount. The result is a procedural standoff that can be difficult to resolve without coordinated legal strategy across jurisdictions.
Enforcement of a foreign payment order or arbitral award in Russia has always been subject to reciprocity and public policy considerations under Russian law. Thematic Review No. 8/2026 reinforces the position that, where a dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction established under Article 248.1, recognition of a competing foreign decision will very likely be refused. This makes it important to consider Russian-side enforcement options before, rather than after, a foreign award is issued – especially when Russian assets are the most readily accessible means of recovery.
For a detailed analysis of how these risks interact with specific recovery scenarios, including claims against sanctioned Russian counterparties, we recommend reviewing our dedicated resource at Recovering Assets from a Sanctioned Russian Counterparty.
Sanctions and Trade Controls: The Broader Context
Articles 248.1 and 248.2 sit within a broader Russian counter-sanctions framework that is evolving in parallel with Western export controls, financial restrictions, and secondary sanctions measures. The Supreme Court's thematic review reflects a judicial policy of consolidating and legitimising counter-sanctions tools, which suggests that Arbitrazh courts will continue to apply them actively in commercial disputes.
International companies should treat this development not as an isolated procedural issue but as part of their wider sanctions and trade compliance and litigation risk framework. Early legal advice – both on the Russian procedural side and on the Western sanctions compliance side – is essential to avoid inadvertently strengthening a counterparty's position before a Russian court.
Our sanctions and trade practice in Russia provides guidance on navigating the interaction between Western restrictive measures and Russian counter-sanctions mechanisms. Further information is available at our Russia Sanctions & Trade page. To discuss a specific matter, please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
Outlook
Thematic Review No. 8/2026 is unlikely to be the last word. As Russian Arbitrazh courts accumulate further decisions under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 and as the sanctions landscape continues to shift, additional Supreme Court guidance – whether through further thematic reviews or clarificatory rulings – should be anticipated. Companies with ongoing Russian commercial relationships or legacy disputes should build a mechanism for monitoring these developments into their legal and compliance functions.
For companies currently managing late payment interest claims, outstanding receivables, or enforcement proceedings against Russian entities, the practical window for shaping procedural strategy – before a Russian court assumes jurisdiction – may be narrow. Our debt recovery team can advise on time-sensitive steps. Details of our practice are available at our Russia Debt Recovery page, and you are welcome to reach us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or via our contacts page.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.