Introduction
The transnational dispute between Russia’s EuroChem North-West-2 and Italy’s Tecnimont, with parallel proceedings involving English, Russian and Indian courts, has become a showcase for the growing complexities of cross-border enforcement and the friction between diverging legal regimes. At stake are not only billions in contractual claims but also substantial questions about the reach of sanctions, the force of arbitral agreements, and the willingness of courts to recognize and enforce foreign judgments. The playing field has recently been extended from Russia and England to India, where EuroChem tries to enforce a Russian judgement under the so-called “Lugovoy-Law”.
This blog post outlines the core conflicts between the Russian and English decisions and highlights the latest developments in the Indian courts—where worldwide attention has focused on the Bombay High Court’s handling of asset preservation measures.
I. Background: Arbitration, Sanctions, and Parallel Proceedings
The dispute began around a major construction project—a fertilizer plant in Russia—where Tecnimont (with its Russian subsidiary MT Russia) was engaged by EuroChem NW2 under several contracts. These contracts provided for ICC arbitration seated in London, and, in part, English law as the applicable law.
Western sanctions imposed in 2022 led Tecnimont to suspend its performance, citing the legal impossibility of continuing the project without violating EU sanctions regimes. EuroChem, disputing the justification, terminated the contracts and initiated proceedings in Russian courts. In parallel, Tecnimont and MT Russia commenced ICC arbitration in London. Thus began a dramatic contest over forum, enforceability, and public policy between the legal systems.
II. The Russian Decision
The Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court – case no. A40-231304/2025 – ruled decisively in favor of EuroChem NW2, granting the Russian company a judgement exceeding $2 billion on 27 November 2025, full text being published on 5 December 2025. The Russian court explicitly dismissed European sanctions as a justification for non-performance, viewing such claims as attempts to shirk contractual obligations. The Russian judicial reasoning effectively positioned national (Russian) public policy above obligations under foreign arbitration clauses or international sanctions law.
Crucially, the Russian court also rejected arguments based on the New York Convention or international comity, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving parties subject to “hostile” foreign sanctions. This approach, empowered by amendments to Russia’s Arbitrazh Procedural Code (Articles 248.1 and 248.2 – the so-called “Lugovoy-Law”), enabled Russian parties to seek anti-arbitration injunctions and ignore foreign forum selection clauses if international sanctions are implicated.
III. The English Decision
Tecnimont and MT Russia sought to enforce their contractual right to arbitration by applying to the English courts. The ICC tribunal issued several peremptory orders directing EuroChem NW2 to withdraw its Russian proceedings and related applications for anti-arbitration injunctions. When NW2 did not comply, Tecnimont successfully applied under Section 42 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 for a court order to enforce these disciplinary orders of the tribunal.
On 21 November 2025, the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) – case no. [2025] EWHC 3151 (Comm) – affirmed the powers of English tribunals and courts to enforce such orders, including anti-suit injunctions—even if enforcement would create a direct clash with Russian judicial actions. The High Court took the view that compliance with peremptory arbitral orders is “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration” and, more broadly, that English law and public policy interests (including the effectiveness of the sanctions regime) should not be undermined by forum-shopping or vexatious parallel litigation in Russia.
IV. The Indian Developments: Bombay High Court Proceedings
Faced with Russian court orders and potential obstacles in Western jurisdictions, EuroChem sought to enforce its Russian judgment in India, targeting Tecnimont’s assets due to its substantial business operations in the country.
Proceedings and Status
On December 22, 2025, EuroChem filed for urgent interim measures in the Bombay High Court, seeking to prevent Tecnimont from dissipating Indian assets pending enforcement of the $2+ billion Russian award. Media coverage and financial press outlets have reported widely on the case, often suggesting that the Bombay High Court “ordered” the preservation of assets or issued a freezing-type injunction.
However, contrary to some reports, the Bombay High Court has not (as of 31 January 2026) issued a formal interim attachment or injunction against Tecnimont. Instead, the application was rejected on 24 December 2025, the current status quo results from a statement and undertaking made by Tecnimont’s counsel: Tecnimont “will not take any precipitative action” regarding its Indian assets outside the ordinary course of business until the next hearing. The court has accepted this statement and scheduled further hearings—but has not itself passed a coercive interim order. See below the respective documents (orders from 24 December 2025 and 13 January 2026), the full Bombay court file is accessible here, the next hearing is scheduled for 5 February 2026.
We will update as soon as there is any further development.
V. What Does This Mean For The Proceedings?
The EuroChem–Tecnimont saga demonstrates the growing divergence between national legal orders in a time of geopolitical fragmentation and “legal warfare.” While the Russian courts enforce judgments strictly against foreign sanctioned parties and disregard arbitral agreements where sanctions are at play, English courts seek to defend the sanctity of arbitration clauses with robust anti-suit orders and the full arsenal of the Arbitration Act. Indian courts, meanwhile, are thrust into the frontline of enforcement, obliged to navigate both the legitimacy of the Russian judgment and any contrary arbitral and English court orders. Sofar, the Indian courts have not taken sides here, the matter is stil pending and the “freezing order” is yet based on a voluntary undertaking, limited till the next hearing on 5 February 2026.
For now, companies with Indian assets should note:
- The preservation of the “status quo” in India is not the product of a court-ordered injunction, but the result of a voluntary declaration by Tecnimont. There is thus, at present, no formal attachment or freezing injunction—contrary to some press reporting.
- The next phase in India will see Tecnimont and EuroChem contest the enforceability of the Russian judgment—raising, among other issues, the impact of English anti-suit and arbitral orders, Indian public policy, and potential conflicts with international obligations under the New York Convention.
- In any case, Parties involved in Russian “Lugovoy” proceedings with assets in India should follow this case very carefully.
Here is the Bombay Court order of 24 December 2025 which first rejected the application for interim measures:
And here is the Bombay Court order of 13 January 2026 that serves as the basis for the asset freeze: