On 29 April 2025, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court (Case Number: А40-92702/25-56-674) granted a motion applied for by the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation for interim relief, ordering the suspension of all arbitration procedures in the case of Wintershall Dea GmbH v. Russian Federation. The order applies until the court issues a final ruling on the Prosecutor’s application to prohibit the arbitration entirely. The case concerns challenges to the arbitral tribunal’s impartiality, mainly due to the fact that the arbitrators and the Permanent Court of Arbitration are seated in “unfriendly states” and thus “under the influence of their political elites for a long time and is susceptible to anti-Russian propaganda.”
We provide an English translation of the decision below, it is definitely worth reading. All parties are identified in the Russian decision which is readily available on the internet.
Parties Involved
Applicant:
- General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, acting through the Deputy Prosecutor General, in the interest of the Russian Federation.
Interested Parties:
- Wintershall Dea GmbH (Germany) – Claimant in the international arbitration
- Aurelius Cotta (Germany) – Legal counsel to Wintershall
- Charles Poncet (Switzerland) – Appointed arbitrator
- Hamid Gharavi (France) – Appointed arbitrator
- Olufunke Adekoya (United Kingdom/Nigeria) – Presiding arbitrator
Third Parties (without independent claims):
- Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation
- PJSC Gazprom
- Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), The Hague
Factual Background
The dispute arises under the Energy Charter Treaty following Russia’s imposition of special economic measures through Presidential Decrees No. 965 and No. 966 dated 19 December 2023. Wintershall initiated arbitration administered by the PCA in The Hague. The Russian Prosecutor’s Office claimed that the arbitration panel was biased, citing failure by the arbitrators to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and argued that the continuation of the arbitration could undermine Russia’s sovereign interests.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The court cited Articles 90 and 91 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, which permit provisional measures to secure a claim or prevent irreparable harm. It also relied on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2024).
The court determined:
- The arbitrators failed to disclose prior conduct and affiliations that could suggest bias.
- The international arbitration proceedings posed a significant risk of economic and procedural harm to the Russian state.
- Without interim measures, the arbitration could reach a final award before the court resolves the Prosecutor’s application, effectively nullifying judicial oversight.
It is interesting to have a closer look at the facts that were used to establish bias for the different individuals:
1. Charles Poncet (Switzerland)
The General Prosecutor’s Office argued that Charles Poncet demonstrated a history of cultural and religious bias, compromising his suitability as a neutral arbitrator. A key incident cited was his removal in November 2023 from the arbitration between Crescent Petroleum and the National Iranian Oil Company (Crescent v. NIOC II) due to overtly discriminatory remarks against Muslims. This was considered particularly relevant given the significant Muslim population in Russia and the nation’s constitutional commitment to multiculturalism. Despite this removal, Poncet failed to disclose the incident in his declaration of impartiality and independence for the Wintershall arbitration, in direct violation of Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Rules and the IBA Guidelines requiring disclosure of any circumstance that might reasonably give rise to doubts about impartiality.
2. Hamid Gharavi (France)
Though less elaborated than others, Hamid Gharavi’s impartiality was questioned based on his connections to a jurisdiction classified by Russia as “unfriendly.” The Prosecutor did not cite specific misconduct by Gharavi but relied on a presumption of bias grounded in the broader national policy articulated by the Russian Supreme Court: that arbitrators from such jurisdictions are presumed to lack neutrality when adjudicating claims against Russia. This presumption stems from the July 2024 Supreme Court ruling in A45-19015/2023, which stated that nationality alone, under certain geopolitical tensions, could constitute grounds for doubt regarding impartiality.
3. Olufunke Adekoya (UK/Nigeria)
Adekoya was alleged to be in a position of structural dependence on the British government, due to the functioning of the UK’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS). Under this scheme, she is purportedly obliged to report interactions with Russian entities, thereby undermining the confidentiality and autonomy required in arbitral proceedings. The Prosecutor contended that this mandatory disclosure obligation impairs her ability to act independently. She also failed to inform the Russian Federation of this potential conflict, breaching the disclosure requirements of both UNCITRAL and the IBA Guidelines.
4. Wintershall Dea GmbH (Germany)
The company was criticized for advancing the arbitration in cooperation with the PCA despite being aware—through diplomatic protests from Russia—of the alleged biases and procedural deficiencies surrounding the tribunal’s constitution. Russia’s Ministry of Energy had issued formal correspondence urging the suspension of the proceedings, which Wintershall disregarded. This was interpreted as tacit complicity in what Russia framed as an “illegitimate” arbitration process. Additionally, Wintershall’s selection of an arbitral seat in the DIFC (Dubai International Financial Centre) was seen as an attempt to internationalize enforcement of a potentially tainted award, in contradiction with principles of mutual legal respect.
5. Aurelius Cotta (Germany)
The German law firm representing Wintershall was also named for continuing its representation despite the allegations and disclosures of procedural irregularities. By allegedly disregarding these issues, the firm was accused of enabling a tribunal that, according to the Prosecutor, fails to meet international standards of impartiality. Although no direct misconduct was attributed to Aurelius Cotta’s members, their continued advocacy in the face of mounting conflict of interest allegations was construed as aggravating the risks to Russia’s sovereign legal interests.
Legal Consequences of Non-Compliance
Binding Effect and Enforceability:
The decision is binding under Russian procedural law. All named parties—Wintershall Dea GmbH, Aurelius Cotta, the arbitrators, and the PCA—must cease all arbitration-related actions regarding the dispute until the court decides on the merits of the Prosecutor’s motion.
Failure to Comply May Result In:
- Contempt of Court Proceedings: Russian courts may initiate enforcement actions or penalties against violators.
- Non-Enforceability of Arbitral Award in Russia: Any award issued during the prohibited period may be deemed unenforceable by Russian courts on the grounds of defiance of judicial orders.
- Negative Impact on Recognition Abroad: Although international enforcement depends on local jurisdictions, breach of due process (including violation of court orders) could support defenses under the New York Convention (1958), especially Article V(1)(b) and (d).
Further Steps Available to Respondents:
Parties may request modification or annulment of the provisional measures under Articles 95 and 97 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, but such requests do not suspend the effect of the order.
Conclusion
This decision illustrates the increasing readiness of Russia to not only intimidate parties acting against Russian interests, but – as a new development – this is extended to counsel acting against Russian interests and even arbitrators and arbitral institutions.
Apart from that, the decision speaks for itself, enjoy the reading, we provide an English translations here.