CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← Home
An item-by-item analysis of Thematic Review No. 8/2026 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, devoted to the application by commercial courts of legislation on special economic measures. The Review brings together 22 legal positions, ranging from the voidness of transactions circumventing presidential decrees to the jurisdiction of Russian courts despite an arbitration clause and the review of foreign judgments for compliance with public policy. Full text of the Review: in the CasusLegal database ↗.
The number of each item links to its verbatim text in the database; the case-law references open the relevant rulings of judicial chambers, Plenum resolutions and Constitutional Court acts. Each item is followed by a verbatim proposition, a brief analysis and the primary judicial acts from which the position developed.
Transactions and payments made in circumvention of presidential decrees and the procedure for approving foreign investments infringe public interests and are void.
Paragraph 1 · A sale and purchase agreement for real estate with a person controlled by a foreign person, concluded without the Government Commission’s approval, is void
The special procedure for real estate transactions (Decree No. 81) is mandatory. Non-compliance infringes the public interests of financial stability; therefore, the transaction is void and whatever has been received must be returned under the rules on bilateral restitution (Article 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Primary source in the database: the Review relies on the clarification in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 (paragraph 75).
Paragraph 2 · A transaction involving shares in a strategic enterprise concluded without the Government Commission’s approval is void
The acquisition by a foreign investor of more than 25 % of the votes in a strategically important company requires prior approval (Law No. 57-ФЗ). A transaction concluded without approval is void, and shares acquired intentionally may be forfeited to the Russian Federation.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Paragraph 3 · A payment circumventing the temporary procedure (Decree No. 95, a type “C” account) is void
Payments under obligations exceeding 10 million roubles owed to a creditor from an unfriendly state must be made through a type “C” account. A payment circumventing this procedure is contrary to public interests and is void.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Paragraph 4 · Artificial splitting of payments to circumvent Decree No. 95 is void
Splitting a single debt into portions of less than 10 million roubles to remove the payment from the scope of the temporary procedure is classified as circumvention of the law for an unlawful purpose (Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and entails voidness.
Primary source in the database: the Review relies on the clarification in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 (paragraph 8).
Paragraph 5 · Assignment of a claim under a “decree-based” obligation is void
An assignment by a foreign creditor of a claim to a person to whom the decree does not apply is aimed at obtaining funds in circumvention of the special account and is therefore void. The position covers obligations under both Decree No. 95 (loans) and Decree No. 322 (intellectual property).
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 307-ЭС24-18161 (2025); Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 (paragraph 8).
Where the temporary procedure does not apply, an assignment is valid; the court examines voidness on its own initiative, and a breach of the special measures may constitute a newly discovered circumstance.
Paragraph 6 · An assignment under an obligation outside the scope of the decrees is valid
If the amount of the claim does not exceed 10 million roubles, or the obligation does not relate to a credit facility, loan or financial instrument, the temporary procedure does not apply and the assignment does not constitute an abuse of rights.
Primary source in the database: a counter-position to item 5; no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Paragraph 7 · The court examines the voidness of an assignment on its own initiative
The court establishes, on its own initiative, the voidness of an assignment circumventing the temporary procedure, including at the cassation stage, in order to protect public interests; whatever the assignee received must be returned by way of restitution.
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 307-ЭС24-18161 (2025); Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 12 (paragraph 32).
Paragraph 8 · Breach of special measures as a newly discovered circumstance
The prosecutor may join proceedings at any stage (part 5 of Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and apply for a review on the basis of newly discovered circumstances if the dispute was initiated to circumvent the special measures.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Paragraph 9 · A settlement agreement circumventing the special procedure must not be approved
A settlement agreement remains a transaction and is governed by the rules on voidness. A term providing for payment in circumvention of a type “O” account (Decree No. 322) infringes public interests; therefore, the court does not approve it (part 5 of Article 49 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
Primary source in the database: the Review relies on the clarification in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 (paragraph 8).
The scope of the temporary procedure for obligations arising from intellectual property, the exception under subparagraph “в” of paragraph 17, and compulsory licensing.
Paragraph 10 · Decree No. 322 covers obligations arising from IP regardless of their basis
The procedure applies both to contractual payments and to compensation for infringement of exclusive rights, including obligations arising from the infliction of harm. The exception under subparagraph “в” of paragraph 17 must be examined separately.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Paragraph 11 · Exception under subparagraph “в” of paragraph 17 of Decree No. 322: the burden lies with the rights holder
Registration of the rights holder in an unfriendly state does not in itself indicate an abuse of rights. The burden of proving continued operations and proper performance of contracts lies with the rights holder; the defendant is entitled to rebut this.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Paragraph 12 · Compulsory licensing as an exceptional measure (Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)
The claimant must prove insufficient use of the invention, its readiness to use it, and the patent holder’s refusal to grant a licence on market terms. The patent holder’s affiliation with an unfriendly jurisdiction and the threat of a shortage of socially important products are taken into account.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
Sanctions against Russian infrastructure as force majeure circumstances: limits of the liability of a broker and the payer’s bank.
Paragraph 13 · A broker is exempt from liability in the event of sanctions against an exchange
Sanctions against a Russian exchange and the blocking of foreign assets constitute force majeure circumstances if the creditor fails to prove another means of performance. This is temporary impossibility: the obligation is not terminated, but penalties for delay are not accrued.
Primary source in the database: the Review relies on the clarifications in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7 (paragraph 9); Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6 (paragraph 38).
Paragraph 14 · The payer’s bank is not liable for blocking at the intermediary bank
If there were no restrictions against the bank on the date of the transfer and it was unaware of the risk of blocking, it is not at fault (Article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Engaging an intermediary bank is lawful in itself (Articles 863 and 865 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Primary source in the database: the Review relies on the clarifications in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7 (paragraph 9); Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6 (paragraph 38).
Exclusive jurisdiction and access to justice: an anti-suit injunction despite an arbitration clause, a close connection with the territory of Russia, and a court-imposed penalty for breach of the injunction.
Paragraph 15 · An arbitration clause does not preclude an application under Article 248.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation
An application for an anti-suit injunction is not an action proceeding; therefore, the rules on leaving an action without consideration where an arbitration clause exists do not apply to it. Such disputes are heard exclusively by a Russian court.
Primary source in the database: constitutional foundation Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2615-О (2025).
Paragraph 16 · A ban on entry into an unfriendly state as a restrictive measure
Restrictive measures are not only personal but also public in nature. Refusal of a visa to participate in foreign proceedings deprives an individual of the opportunity to defend their rights abroad and supports the jurisdiction of a Russian court.
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 309-ЭС21-6955 (2021); Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2615-О (2025).
Paragraph 17 · Jurisdiction despite an arbitration clause (bonds, guarantee, Euroclear)
A dispute brought by a bondholder against a Russian guarantor concerning blocked payments in Euroclear falls within the jurisdiction of a Russian court under paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: the impartiality of arbitrators from an unfriendly jurisdiction is doubtful, while performance of the clause has become burdensome and unpredictable.
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 305-ЭС24-13398 (2024); Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2615-О (2025).
Paragraph 18 · Jurisdiction based on a close connection and the actual place of performance of the contract
Even in the absence of exclusive jurisdiction, a dispute falls within the jurisdiction of a Russian court where it has a close connection with the territory of Russia (paragraph 10 of part 1 of Article 247 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), primarily based on the actual place of performance of the obligation. A choice-of-law clause does not in itself determine jurisdiction.
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 302-ЭС22-16135 (2022); Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 23 (paragraphs 4, 15).
Paragraph 21 · A court-imposed penalty for breach of an anti-suit injunction is permissible
Part 10 of Article 248.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation expressly permits the award of a sum of money in the event of non-compliance with the injunction. Its amount is limited to the amount of the claims asserted before the foreign court and the expenses incurred.
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 309-ЭС21-6955 (2021); Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2615-О (2025).
Review of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards for compliance with public policy, and the presumption that arbitrators from unfriendly countries lack impartiality.
Paragraph 19 · Recognition of a foreign arbitral award: review of public policy and impartiality
The court must assess the consequences of enforcing the decision and the proportionality of the damages awarded, rather than replacing this assessment with a review of the validity of the transaction. The appointment of individuals who are nationals of unfriendly states as arbitrators gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that they lack impartiality.
Primary source in the database: direct primary source Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes No. 304-ЭС24-2799 (2024); Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 46-П (2023).
Paragraph 20 · Enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of an unfriendly person violates public policy
The applicable temporary procedure and the requirement to specify the claimant's account with a Russian credit institution (Federal Law No. 624) make enforcement in favour of a person from an unfriendly jurisdiction contrary to public policy (paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 239 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
Primary source in the database: constitutional foundation Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 46-П (2023).
The movement of sanctioned foreign goods through Russia is permitted only under the customs transit procedure.
Paragraph 22 · Movement of sanctioned goods through Russia only under the customs transit procedure
The key criterion for countermeasures is the origin of the goods, not the customs procedure. The only goods exempt from the import ban are those placed under the transit procedure to third countries (Decree No. 391); conferring EAEU-goods status on sanctioned goods constitutes an abuse of rights.
Primary source in the database: no separate primary judicial act has been identified in the connector database.
The connector identified the primary judicial decisions from which the Review synthesised the legal positions. The lines of continuity across the key blocks are as follows:
For a number of items (2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 22), the Review was formulated at the level of the provisions of decrees and laws, without a separate primary judicial decision in the connector database; in such cases, the sources field has been left blank and no links have been added.
Complete catalogue of case law applying the Resolution
All 12 primary decisions have been compiled into a single interactive CasusLegal catalogue, with active links to the full text and export in Markdown and DOCX: Open the interactive catalogue →