Introduction
In a decision dated 14 September 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region in Case No. А41-59851/26 rendered a judgment on whether an assignee of loan claims remained bound by arbitration clauses referring disputes to the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
The court left OOO ETM’s claim for EUR 1,417,550.13 without consideration. It held that the arbitration clauses remained effective following the assignment and that the claimant had not established that they were invalid, had ceased to have effect, or were incapable of performance.
Factual Background
OOO ETM brought proceedings against OOO Aditim before the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region. It sought payment of EUR 1,417,550.13 allegedly owed under Loan Agreement No. 7-2012 of 11 September 2012 and Loan Agreement No. 9-2015 of 25 March 2015, together with reimbursement of the state filing fee.
ETM was not the original lender under the loan agreements. It had acquired the claims by assignment.
Aditim applied to have the claim left without consideration. It argued that both loan agreements contained effective arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. According to Aditim, ETM acquired the claims subject to those clauses and was therefore bound by them as assignee.
ETM opposed the application by reference to Article 248.1(4) of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code. It submitted that the agreed place of arbitration was in Sweden, which Russia classifies as a state engaging in unfriendly actions, and that the arbitration clauses were consequently incapable of performance.
Legal Considerations
Clause 4.2 of Loan Agreement No. 7-2012 provided:
«В случае невозможности разрешения спора путем переговоров дело подлежит разрешению в Арбитражном институте Торговой палаты г. Стокгольма в соответствии с регламентом указанного института; решение такого арбитража является обязательным и окончательным для сторон».
In translation, the clause stated that if a dispute could not be resolved through negotiations, it was to be decided by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce under that institution’s rules, with the resulting award being binding and final upon the parties.
Loan Agreement No. 9-2015 contained an equivalent clause in paragraph 4.2. The court therefore found that the parties to the original loan agreements had expressly agreed to refer disputes arising from those agreements to international commercial arbitration.
The court observed that ETM had not submitted evidence showing that the arbitration agreements had been declared invalid, had ceased to have effect, or had been terminated.
It then referred to paragraph 31 of Resolution No. 54 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Court dated 21 December 2017 concerning changes of parties to obligations. Under that guidance, an arbitration agreement concluded between an original creditor and a debtor remains effective between the new creditor and the debtor unless the relevant contract, or a separate agreement between the debtor and the new creditor, provides otherwise.
According to the court, an assignee acquires a claim in the scope and on the conditions on which it existed in the hands of the original creditor. Those conditions include the contractually agreed dispute-resolution procedure. The court also noted that ETM itself acknowledged in its statement of claim that the arbitration clauses continued to apply to it as the new creditor.
The court consequently treated the dispute as falling within the jurisdiction of the arbitration institution selected in the loan agreements. Although ETM invoked Article 248.1(4) on the basis that the arbitration was seated in an unfriendly state, the order did not contain a separate, detailed assessment of any sanctions imposed on ETM or of specific practical obstacles preventing it from pursuing SCC arbitration.
Under Article 148(1)(5) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, a Russian arbitrazh court must leave a claim without consideration when a party makes a timely objection based on an arbitration agreement, unless the court finds that the agreement is invalid, has ceased to have effect, or cannot be performed. The court found none of those exceptions established and left ETM’s claim without consideration.
The reasoning expressly relied on Article 148(1)(5), although the concluding formula of the order referred instead to Article 148(1)(9).
The court ordered the return to ETM of the RUB 1,056,070 state filing fee paid under payment order No. 4 of 22 May 2026. It also stated that leaving the claim without consideration did not prevent ETM from bringing proceedings again after removing the circumstances that had led to that procedural outcome. The order was subject to appeal.
This decision is in line with an earlier judgment in Case No. А55-24707/2022, in which a Russian claimant likewise sought to avoid an SCC arbitration clause under Article 248.1. In that case, the claimant did not prove that sanctions or practical payment barriers prevented it from pursuing arbitration: A Russian person can only bring a dispute before a Russian court if it has proof of the existence of sanctions against it.
