Recovering money from a Russian company in 2026 remains legally possible for foreign creditors, but the process requires careful navigation of both procedural law and the sanctions-related jurisdictional rules that have reshaped Russian commercial litigation since 2022. The primary route runs through the Russian state commercial courts – the Arbitrazh courts – governed by the Arbitrazh Procedural Code (APC RF), with enforcement carried out by the Federal Bailiff Service. Understanding the interaction between Article 248.1 APC RF, recent Constitutional Court guidance and the Supreme Court's consolidated practice review is essential before any claim is filed.
The Legal Framework in 2026: What Has Changed and Why It Matters
Russian commercial dispute resolution law has undergone substantial change over the past three years. Two provisions of the APC RF are now central to any cross-border debt collection matter involving a Russian counterparty.
Article 248.1 APC RF grants Russian Arbitrazh courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes where one party is subject to foreign sanctions, or where the underlying contract has been affected by restrictive measures. In practice this means that even where a valid arbitration clause exists – pointing to a foreign seat such as ICC Paris or LCIA London – the Russian respondent can apply to a Russian court to assert exclusive domestic jurisdiction over the dispute.
Article 248.2 APC RF goes further: it empowers Russian courts to issue anti-suit injunctions and, in appropriate cases, anti-arbitration injunctions. Courts may impose financial penalties on the respondent of up to the full amount of the disputed claim for non-compliance with such orders. These penalties can accrue rapidly and should be factored into any enforcement strategy from the outset.
Critically, Constitutional Court Ruling No. 999-O of 29 April 2025 clarified that the application of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 is not automatic. A Russian court cannot simply declare exclusive jurisdiction on the basis that sanctions exist; there must be a demonstrated, real obstacle preventing the foreign party from accessing justice in the originally agreed forum. This ruling has meaningfully constrained opportunistic use of these provisions by Russian defendants and provides important leverage for foreign creditors who can show that their arbitration or foreign court proceedings remain accessible.
In June 2026, the Supreme Court of Russia published its Thematic Review No. 8/2026, consolidating lower-court practice on sanctions-related jurisdictional disputes. This review is now the principal reference document for practitioners handling cross-border debt recovery and unpaid invoice claims in Russian courts, and it has increased procedural predictability, even if the substantive outcome in any individual case remains uncertain.
If you are assessing how Articles 248.1 and 248.2 may apply to your specific dispute, our team regularly advises on these provisions. You are welcome to write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to discuss the details.
Step-by-Step Procedure: From Unpaid Invoice to Enforcement
Step 1 – Pre-Litigation Assessment and Forum Analysis
Before initiating proceedings, a creditor must determine the most appropriate forum. Review your contract's dispute-resolution clause in light of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 and the Constitutional Court's 2025 guidance. If your arbitration clause points to a foreign seat and the Russian counterparty is or may become sanctioned, seek legal advice on whether a Russian court is likely to accept or assert exclusive jurisdiction. A parallel assessment of the debtor's asset base in Russia is also advisable at this stage, since enforcement without identified assets is rarely cost-effective.
Step 2 – Pre-Claim Notice and Mandatory Complaint Procedure
Russian procedural law generally requires a creditor to send a written pre-claim notice (претензия) to the debtor before filing in an Arbitrazh court. The contractual or statutory response period must elapse before the claim is lodged. Failure to observe this step will result in the court returning the claim without examination. Ensure that the notice is sent by a method that produces documentary proof of receipt, as the court will require evidence of compliance.
Step 3 – Filing the Statement of Claim with the Arbitrazh Court
Claims for debt collection and enforcement of payment obligations are filed with the Arbitrazh court of the Russian Federation at the defendant's registered address or, in certain cases, at the place of contract performance. The statement of claim must include:
- Full identification of the parties (including apostilled and notarially certified translations of foreign corporate documents where the claimant is a non-Russian entity);
- A clear statement of the amount claimed, including the principal debt, late payment interest calculated under the contract or applicable statutory rate, and any penalties;
- Documentary evidence of the contractual relationship – signed contracts, addenda, invoices, delivery or acceptance acts;
- Proof that the pre-claim procedure was observed;
- Evidence of payment of the state duty (госпошлина), which is calculated on a sliding scale by reference to the claim value.
Foreign claimants should be aware that all documents not originating in Russia must be legalised or apostilled and accompanied by a certified Russian translation. Defective legalisation is one of the most common reasons for procedural delay in debt recovery cases.
Step 4 – Interim Measures and Asset Freezing
At any stage after filing – and in urgent circumstances even before filing – a creditor may apply for interim measures (обеспечительные меры), including asset freezing orders. The court will grant such measures if the claimant can demonstrate that without them the enforcement of a future judgment would be difficult or impossible. Supporting evidence of attempts to dissipate assets significantly strengthens such an application. Interim measures in Russian Arbitrazh courts can be obtained relatively quickly compared with the main proceedings, but they require careful and well-evidenced pleading.
Step 5 – Litigation and Judgment
First-instance Arbitrazh proceedings on commercial debt claims typically take several months from filing to judgment, depending on the complexity of the dispute, the court's caseload, and whether the defendant contests the claim or seeks jurisdictional challenges under Article 248.1. Appeals to the circuit-level appellate and cassation courts can extend the overall timeline further. Late payment interest continues to accrue on the principal sum during this period under the terms of the contract or, in the absence of a contractual rate, under the applicable statutory provisions.
Step 6 – Obtaining an Enforceable Writ
Once a judgment becomes enforceable, the claimant applies to the court that issued it for an enforcement writ (исполнительный лист). This writ is the instrument presented to the Federal Bailiff Service or directly to the debtor's bank to initiate enforcement against identified assets, including bank accounts, receivables and immovable property.
Step 7 – Enforcement by the Federal Bailiff Service
Enforcement proceedings are conducted by the Federal Bailiff Service (ФССП). The creditor must present the enforcement writ to the territorial office of the Service at the debtor's location. Bailiffs have broad powers to investigate the debtor's assets, impose levies on bank accounts, and arrange the sale of seized property. Active engagement with the enforcement process – including providing the bailiff with information on identified assets – materially improves the speed and effectiveness of recovery.
If the debtor's accounts are with a known bank, it is often faster to present the enforcement writ directly to that bank under Article 8 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings, bypassing the Bailiff Service at the collection stage.
Government Commission Considerations for Cross-Border Transactions
Since 2022, certain payments by Russian entities to creditors in "unfriendly" states require prior approval from the Russian Government Commission on Foreign Investment Control. Where such approval is required and has not been obtained, the Russian debtor may be legally prevented from effecting payment even if a court judgment exists. Foreign creditors should assess at the outset whether this approval requirement applies to their specific situation and, if so, whether an application is feasible or whether alternative enforcement routes – for example, against Russian assets abroad – should be considered in parallel.
Our sanctions and trade team advises on Government Commission applications and related cross-border payment restrictions. Further information is available on our Russia sanctions and trade practice page.
Realistic Timelines
There is no single timeline applicable to all cases, as duration depends on the value and complexity of the claim, the defendant's conduct, and whether jurisdictional challenges are raised. The following general ranges reflect typical experience in 2025–2026:
- Pre-claim notice period: typically 30 days unless the contract specifies otherwise;
- First-instance Arbitrazh proceedings: several months to approximately one year for contested cases;
- Appeals: each level of appeal can add several months to the overall process;
- Enforcement through the Bailiff Service: highly variable – straightforward levies on bank accounts may be completed within weeks, whereas enforcement against real property can take considerably longer.
Key Cost Drivers
The main cost components in Russian debt collection proceedings include:
- State court duty (госпошлина), calculated as a percentage of the claim value on a statutory sliding scale – this is recoverable from the losing party if the claim succeeds;
- Certified translation and legalisation costs for foreign corporate documents;
- Legal representation fees (also partially recoverable, subject to the court's reasonableness assessment);
- Enforcement fees charged by the Bailiff Service as a percentage of the recovered sum;
- Any Government Commission-related advisory costs if cross-border payment approval is required.
Common Errors by Foreign Creditors
Based on recurring patterns in cross-border debt recovery matters, the following errors are among the most consequential:
- Ignoring the pre-claim notice requirement: courts will return the claim if this procedural step is not documented properly;
- Submitting untranslated or inadequately legalised documents: a frequent cause of delay and additional cost;
- Failing to assess Article 248.1 exposure before commencing foreign arbitration: a Russian counterparty may obtain an anti-arbitration injunction with penalties accruing during the foreign proceedings;
- Treating Constitutional Court Ruling No. 999-O as rendering Articles 248.1–248.2 toothless: the ruling limits automatic application but does not eliminate the risk – a Russian defendant who can demonstrate real access obstacles may still succeed;
- Neglecting asset tracing before filing: obtaining a judgment against a company with no traceable assets in Russia or abroad may not produce any recovery;
- Overlooking Government Commission payment restrictions: a judgment in hand does not guarantee that the Russian debtor can lawfully remit funds to a creditor in an "unfriendly" jurisdiction.
For a detailed assessment of the risks relevant to your specific claim, including jurisdictional exposure under Articles 248.1 and 248.2, you may find our analysis on the Constitutional Court ruling and its limits on Article 248 applications a useful starting point.
Decision Checklist Before Filing
- Has the pre-claim notice been sent and has the response period elapsed?
- Has a forum analysis been conducted in light of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 APC RF and Constitutional Court Ruling No. 999-O?
- Are all foreign corporate documents apostilled and accompanied by certified Russian translations?
- Has an asset-tracing exercise identified enforceable assets in Russia?
- Has the Government Commission payment approval requirement been assessed?
- Has the claim value, including accrued late payment interest and contractual penalties, been calculated accurately?
- Is legal representation by a qualified Russian lawyer in place?
Our Russia debt recovery practice covers the full spectrum from pre-litigation strategy through to enforcement. If you would like to discuss a specific matter, please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through 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.