Introduction
In a decision dated 24 August 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of the Novosibirsk Region in case number А45-29752/2026 rendered a ruling on territorial jurisdiction (forum selection).
The court returned (i.e., refused to accept for filing) the claim because the parties’ contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Berlin and a reference to German law.
Facts
The claimant, an individual entrepreneur, filed a claim against OOO “SDEK-Global” (ООО «СДЭК-Глобал») seeking:
- RUB 122,438,316 as principal debt under a contract dated 01.01.2022 No. GLO-EUR-01; and
- RUB 147,439,441 as a contractual penalty (неустойка) calculated as of 13.08.2026, with continuing accrual until actual performance.
According to the statement of claim, the claimant asserted that he had acquired the receivable against the defendant by way of an assignment (cession) agreement (договор цессии).
The court noted that during 2026, the same claimant had filed four lawsuits in the Novosibirsk Arbitrazh Court against the same defendant, allegedly without paying the state court fee, in the following matters and amounts:
- А45-2640/2026 — RUB 326,566,718.8
- А45-17469/2026 — RUB 317,877,910.87
- А45-29728/2026 — RUB 661,970,878
- А45-29752/2026 — RUB 269,877,757
The court stated that the aggregate value of claims filed in 2026 exceeded RUB 1.5 billion, and that the rights to claim these amounts were acquired by the claimant via assignments concluded less than a year earlier.
Legal considerations
1) Jurisdiction and the effect of the Berlin forum clause
The court began by outlining the Russian arbitrazh (state commercial court) rules on jurisdiction under the Arbitrazh Procedure Code (АПК РФ):
- As a general rule, claims are filed at the defendant’s location (АПК РФ, Arts. 34–35).
- However, parties may agree on contractual jurisdiction (forum selection) before the court accepts the case (АПК РФ, Art. 37). The court described contractual jurisdiction as generally prevailing over other jurisdictional bases, except exclusive jurisdiction set by law.
The decisive point was Clause 5.10 of the contract, quoted by the court as follows (translated, but keeping the wording as in the decision):
“In the event that it is impossible to resolve disputed issues through negotiations, the courts of Berlin shall have exclusive jurisdiction in resolving any disputes arising under the contract or in connection with it. German substantive or procedural law applies to the contract.”
On that basis, the court held that—given the parties’ agreed exclusive forum—the dispute was not within the jurisdiction of the Novosibirsk Arbitrazh Court and therefore the claim had to be returned under АПК РФ, Article 129(1)(1) (return of statement of claim where the matter is not cognisable by that court).
2) Rejection of reliance on Russia’s “sanctions jurisdiction” rule (АПК РФ Article 248.1)
The claimant argued that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts under АПК РФ Article 248.1, a provision introduced to address access-to-justice issues where a party is affected by foreign restrictive measures (sanctions) and cannot effectively litigate in the agreed foreign forum.
The court rejected that argument. It reasoned that nothing in the claim or attachments showed that restrictive measures had been applied to the claimant, and in particular:
- no evidence was provided that the claimant was included in foreign sanctions lists; and
- no evidence was provided that the claimant had been denied judicial protection in Germany under the agreed forum clause.
The court added that a claimant who is not under foreign sanctions does not have the right to use Article 248.1 mechanisms and should not interpret the provision “to artificially create an appearance” of Russian court competence in a dispute otherwise subject to a foreign exclusive forum agreement.
3) Refusal to defer the Russian state court fee and its procedural consequence
Separately, the court refused the claimant’s motion for a deferral of the state court fee (государственная пошлина). It relied on:
- the presumption under Russian civil law that an assignment agreement is remunerated (i.e., for consideration), citing Civil Code Article 423(3) and Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 54 dated 21.12.2017 on assignment of claims; and
- guidance from the Supreme Court’s Review of Judicial Practice No. 2, 3 (2024) (approved 27.11.2024) that fee deferral should secure access to justice when a party’s financial position does not allow payment, while noting that the state fee also has a preventive function.
In light of the claimant’s acquisition of claims exceeding RUB 1.5 billion through assignments presumed to be paid, the court concluded there was no sufficient basis to find an objective inability to pay the fee and therefore denied the request.
The court noted that, under АПК РФ Article 129(1) (including the provision referenced by the court as “абзац девятый”), a statement of claim is also returned if the fee deferral motion is denied.
Outcome
The Arbitrazh Court of the Novosibirsk Region returned the statement of claim filed on 17.08.2026. The ruling may be appealed to the Seventh Arbitrazh Appellate Court within one month, via the court of first instance.
