Introduction
In a decision dated 28 October 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region in case number A41-111202/2026 rendered a judgment on interim measures in support of SCC arbitration and the relationship between that relief and Article 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code (APC), commonly known as Lugovoy Law.
The court granted JSC NIPIGAZ measures preserving claims asserted by Tecnimont S.p.A. and LLC MT Russia under a terminated engineering, procurement and construction contract. It held that NIPIGAZ’s decision not to invoke Article 248.1 APC against the Stockholm arbitration did not prevent a Russian court from granting interim measures under Article 90(3) APC in support of that arbitration and NIPIGAZ’s counterclaims.
Factual Background
On 2 June 2017, NIPIGAZ, as general contractor, entered into Contract No. AGPZ-955/0055 with a contractor consortium that included Italian company Tecnimont and Russian company MT Russia. The contract concerned engineering, procurement and construction work for the Amur Gas Processing Plant.
On 21 July 2023, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control added NIPIGAZ to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List under the RUSSIA-EO14024 programme. Relying on that designation, the consortium notified NIPIGAZ that it would suspend performance from 3 September 2023.
The parties signed a termination agreement on 12 January 2024. Tecnimont and MT Russia were to deliver equipment, materials and documents and remedy shortages and defects by 30 April 2024. NIPIGAZ was to make staged milestone payments. Under clause 6.1.1 of the agreement, Tecnimont and MT Russia were jointly and severally liable for full, proper and timely performance. Disputes were referred to arbitration under the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, seated in Stockholm, Sweden.
On 6 March 2026, Tecnimont and MT Russia commenced SCC arbitration No. V2026/051. Acting jointly under the designation “TCM”, and without allocating the amounts between them, they claimed RUB 785,684,540.93 and EUR 7,428,273.01 in milestone payments and damages.
NIPIGAZ filed its response on 6 April 2026. It disputed those claims and brought counterclaims for RUB 2,415,142,224.23 and CNY 96,132, which the decision valued at EUR 26,798,864.43 as of 20 January 2026. NIPIGAZ also asked the tribunal to set off any sums awarded to Tecnimont and MT Russia and determine the final balance of the parties’ mutual obligations. The SCC confirmed the presiding arbitrator on 3 June 2026, and the arbitration remained pending when the Russian court issued its order.
NIPIGAZ sought interim measures because it said the receivables asserted in the SCC case could be assigned, encumbered or sold in Russian enforcement proceedings before the tribunal determined the parties’ final balance. The requested measures included an attachment over those receivables, restrictions on dealings with them, a prohibition on NIPIGAZ paying them to the claimants or successors, and a prohibition on Russian bailiffs selling or transferring them.
Legal Considerations
Jurisdiction to Support a Foreign Seated Arbitration
The court relied on Article 90(3) APC and Supreme Court guidance confirming that Russian arbitrazh courts may grant interim measures for disputes within the jurisdiction of a foreign international commercial arbitration, including an arbitration seated outside Russia. Because Tecnimont was the arbitration’s initiator and principal participant on the claimants’ side, and claimed rights in the entire pool of receivables, the court assessed territorial jurisdiction primarily by reference to Tecnimont.
Tecnimont was incorporated in Italy, had no Russian address, branch or representative office, and the ordinary venue rules did not identify one Russian court with mandatory jurisdiction. The court therefore applied the residual venue rule under Articles 3(5) and 38(7) APC and Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 23, under which the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region hears a foreign-element economic dispute when the domestic venue provisions do not determine venue unambiguously.
The court also reviewed the arbitration agreement as required for interim relief supporting arbitration. It found no indication that the SCC clause was invalid or incapable of performance. Tecnimont and MT Russia themselves had commenced the arbitration; NIPIGAZ was participating, had filed a response and counterclaims; and the tribunal had been constituted.
Why Article 248.1 APC Did Not Displace the SCC Arbitration
The decision addressed Article 248.1 APC directly because NIPIGAZ was subject to US blocking sanctions and the arbitration was seated in Sweden. The court nevertheless did not treat sanctions, the foreign seat or Sweden’s inclusion among states classified by Russia as “unfriendly” as automatically transferring the merits dispute to the Russian courts.
The court reasoned that resorting to a Russian arbitrazh court under Article 248.1 and seeking a prohibition on continuation of foreign proceedings are rights of the person affected by restrictive measures. They are not compulsory procedural consequences. NIPIGAZ had not used those rights. Instead, it continued to participate in the SCC arbitration, accepted the tribunal’s competence over Tecnimont’s claims, and submitted counterclaims against both Tecnimont and MT Russia.
NIPIGAZ did challenge the tribunal’s competence over MT Russia’s claims, but on narrower procedural grounds: alleged failure to comply with the mandatory pre-arbitration procedure and lack of proof that the request for arbitration had been authorised on MT Russia’s behalf. In the alternative, it argued that those claims were inadmissible. The decision did not record NIPIGAZ as relying on sanctions to make the SCC clause inoperative.
Against that procedural background, Article 248.1 did not supply the basis for the measures and did not undermine the arbitration agreement. The court used Article 90(3) APC to support the arbitration chosen and pursued by the parties. It expressly held that a sanctioned party’s non-use of the Article 248.1 route does not prevent Russian interim relief in support of a foreign arbitration in which that party participates and advances counterclaims.
Connection Between the Receivables and the Counterclaims
The court found a direct connection between the property to be preserved and NIPIGAZ’s counterclaims. Both arose from the same termination agreement. The milestone payments claimed by Tecnimont and MT Russia depended on performance of obligations concerning documentation, equipment, materials and rectification of non-conformities; alleged breach of those obligations formed the basis of NIPIGAZ’s counterclaims.
Because clause 6.1.1 made Tecnimont and MT Russia jointly and severally liable, each could be responsible for the entire counterclaim regardless of which consortium member was entitled to a particular milestone payment. The receivables were therefore not an unrelated asset. They were the opposing side of the same legal relationship whose final balance the SCC tribunal was being asked to determine.
That reasoning also covered the possibility that the tribunal might decline jurisdiction over MT Russia’s affirmative claims. NIPIGAZ’s counterclaims against MT Russia as a jointly liable debtor would remain before the tribunal, and preserving any receivables belonging to MT Russia would still allow the awarded amounts to be compared and balanced.
Risk of Non Enforcement and Double Recovery
The court found a real risk that an eventual award on NIPIGAZ’s counterclaims could not be enforced. A 5 December 2025 Moscow judgment, affirmed on appeal and cassation, had ordered Tecnimont and MT Russia jointly to pay more than RUB 171 billion. The decision recorded that enforcement remained substantially unsatisfied and that other enforcement proceedings were pending against MT Russia.
The court also referred to a final judgment invalidating an October 2025 assignment by which MT Russia had transferred receivables to Tecnimont. That judgment had characterised the transaction as an attempt to move assets out of Russia to an unfriendly state. Separately, another judgment had found Tecnimont’s 99 per cent participation in MT Russia to be its only liquid asset in Russia.
Under Article 76(2) of the Russian Enforcement Proceedings Law, a receivable may be collected by directing the debtor to pay the bailiff service or by selling the receivable at auction. Before a final SCC award was recognised in Russia, a bailiff could not account for the tribunal’s final net balance, and NIPIGAZ could not set off unadjudicated counterclaims in the enforcement proceeding. A sale or collection could therefore leave NIPIGAZ facing the purchaser of the receivable in Russia while Tecnimont and MT Russia continued to pursue the same debt in the foreign arbitration or sought enforcement abroad.
Sanctions entered this part of the analysis as evidence of enforcement difficulty rather than as a basis for exclusive Russian jurisdiction. Tecnimont was based in Italy, the arbitration was seated in Sweden, NIPIGAZ was on the US SDN list, and no other Tecnimont assets in Russia had been identified beyond the disputed receivables and its MT Russia participation. Taken with the existing enforcement proceedings and the prior attempted assignment, those facts supported the risk analysis under Article 90(2) APC.
Proportionality and Scope of the Measures
Under Articles 90 and 91 APC and Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 15, the court assessed whether the measures were connected with the counterclaims, proportionate, necessary and compatible with the interests of other creditors. It regarded the requested package as necessary to preserve the status quo until the SCC tribunal determined the parties’ final obligations.
The attachment and restrictions did not transfer the receivables to NIPIGAZ. Tecnimont and MT Russia retained ownership, but could not assign, pledge, alter, extinguish or collect the receivables within the protected amount. The restriction on NIPIGAZ’s payment obligations did not extend to the final balancing or set-off ordered in the SCC award.
The order directed at bailiffs prohibited only sale or transfer of the identified receivables. It did not stay the enforcement proceedings generally, prevent execution against other assets, alter creditor priorities or bar enforcement of another judgment. The court considered the bailiff restriction necessary because attachment alone would not prevent another creditor from having the receivables sold at auction.
The measures were capped at EUR 26,798,864.43, payable in roubles at the Bank of Russia exchange rate on the date of execution, matching the stated value of NIPIGAZ’s counterclaims. Their duration was tied principally to a final Russian decision on recognition and enforcement of the SCC award. The order also addressed alternative end points if recognition were refused, the award were set aside, the arbitration terminated without a merits award, or the tribunal declined jurisdiction over some claims.
Orders Made
The court granted the application in full and ordered the following measures within the EUR 26,798,864.43 limit:
- attachment of Tecnimont’s and MT Russia’s receivables against NIPIGAZ arising from the 2017 contract and the 2024 termination agreement;
- a prohibition on Tecnimont, MT Russia and persons acting for them assigning, pledging, transferring, novating, compromising, extinguishing or collecting those receivables;
- a prohibition on NIPIGAZ performing the corresponding obligations in favour of Tecnimont, MT Russia or successors, without preventing the final balancing or set-off under the SCC award; and
- a prohibition on Russian bailiffs selling the receivables or transferring them to creditors in satisfaction of debts.
KDB.legal Koch Boës advises on all kind of sanction related disputes in litigation and arbitration.
