Introduction
In a decision dated 22 October 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region in case number A56-67016/2026 (Decision of 22 October 2026 – A56-67016/2026) rendered a judgment on Gazprom’s application to prevent the enforcement of an ICC arbitral award and the continuation of related proceedings outside Russia.
The court granted the application in part. It prohibited Gasunie Transport Services B.V., two major Dutch law firms and their employees from taking specified enforcement and litigation steps. If the order is disobeyed, each respondent faces a conditional judicial penalty exceeding €57 million.
Although these amounts may be described as heavy fines, the decision formally characterises them as judicial penalties payable upon non-compliance, rather than administrative or criminal fines.
Factual Background
Gazprom, as lender, and South Stream Transport B.V., as borrower, concluded four loan agreements between December 2016 and January 2018, subsequently amended by supplementary agreements.
According to the judgment, clause 4.1 of the loan agreements provided, in an unofficial translation from the Russian decision:
“The law applicable to the loan agreements and the supplementary agreements shall be the law of the Russian Federation.”
Clause 5.2 provided:
“All disputes in connection with these transactions shall be resolved in accordance with the applicable legislation of the Russian Federation.”
The court stated that disputes arising from the loan agreements were to be heard by the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow.
The wider dispute concerned contracts under which Gazprom Export had reserved gas-transport capacity in the Netherlands. On 3 August 2023, Gasunie commenced ICC arbitration against Gazprom, seeking performance of a guarantee given in connection with Gazprom Export’s contractual obligations. The amount covered by the guarantee was €54,250,448.
On 31 December 2024, the ICC tribunal issued an award against Gazprom for the guarantee amount, interest and costs. On 29 January 2025, the District Court of Amsterdam granted Gasunie leave to enforce the award.
One of the two major Dutch law firms represented Gasunie in the arbitration and Dutch enforcement proceedings. The other was involved in the measures taken to collect the award.
In February 2025, Gazprom received a demand requiring payment of the award to the Dutch enforcement office. South Stream Transport was separately notified that an attachment had been placed on amounts it allegedly owed Gazprom. A further demand sent in March 2026 instructed South Stream Transport to pay the relevant amounts to the enforcement office.
In April 2025, one of the two major Dutch law firms demanded information and documents concerning Gazprom’s loan relationship with South Stream Transport. It also demanded payment of the amount awarded by the ICC tribunal. The letter warned that Gasunie could take further legal action against Gazprom and its directors.
Gasunie also asserted that amendments to the loan agreements between Gazprom and South Stream Transport were invalid.
Gazprom subsequently applied to the Russian court for an order preventing Gasunie, the two major Dutch law firms and their employees from enforcing the ICC award or pursuing related foreign proceedings.
Proceedings Before the Russian Court
Gasunie and the two major Dutch law firms did not appear at the Russian hearing. The court found that they had been properly notified by post in accordance with Article 10(a) of the 1965 Hague Service Convention. A notarised translation of an earlier procedural order had reportedly been received on 2 September 2026.
Gazprom and Gazprom Export supported the application.
Gazprom argued that Gasunie, assisted by the two major Dutch law firms, was attempting to enforce the award and attach Gazprom’s property in a state that had adopted restrictive measures against Russia and Russian companies.
Legal Considerations
The court relied principally on Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code.
Article 248.1 assigns certain disputes involving Russian persons affected by foreign restrictive measures to the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts. Article 248.2 permits such a person to seek an order prohibiting the initiation or continuation of proceedings before a foreign court or international commercial tribunal.
The court held that the existence of foreign restrictive measures may itself be sufficient to establish an obstacle to access to justice. In its interpretation, the Russian applicant was not required to demonstrate in every case precisely how the sanctions prevented it from participating in the foreign proceedings.
The judgment referred to Russian Government Order No. 430-r of 5 March 2022, under which European Union Member States are included in Russia’s list of states and territories engaging in “unfriendly actions.”
It also relied on Article 5n of Council Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014 and restrictions concerning the provision of certain legal services to Russian entities. The court referred additionally to public statements by European law firms declining Russian instructions. It considered that difficulties in obtaining qualified legal representation prevented Gazprom from participating effectively in proceedings in the Netherlands.
The court further referred to Article 3i of Regulation No. 833/2014 and the treatment of certain Russian-origin goods entering the European Union. It considered that the possible seizure of laptops and mobile telephones belonging to Russian representatives created an additional practical obstacle to participation in European proceedings.
On that basis, the court concluded that Gazprom could not presently expect an impartial and fair determination of disputes connected with the loan agreements outside Russia.
The Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Orders
The court prohibited Gasunie, the two major Dutch law firms and their employees from continuing or carrying out enforcement of the ICC award of 31 December 2024.
It also prohibited them from initiating or continuing arbitration or court proceedings against Gazprom or its directors outside Russia in connection with the four loan agreements and their amendments. The prohibition expressly covered proceedings seeking an anti-suit or anti-anti-suit injunction against Gazprom.
The court refused, however, to extend the prohibition to proceedings against South Stream Transport. It reasoned that the statutory right to request an injunction belonged to the person against whom foreign proceedings had been or were likely to be commenced. South Stream Transport had not filed its own application or asserted an independent claim in the Russian case.
Two Major Dutch Law Firms Threatened with Heavy Fines
Under Article 248.2(10), a Russian arbitrazh court may attach a monetary consequence to an anti-suit injunction. The amount must be fair and proportionate and may not exceed the amount claimed in the foreign proceedings together with the affected party’s legal costs.
The court identified the amounts awarded in the ICC proceedings as €57,389,778.13, £1,765 and US$5,000.
It ordered that, in the event of non-compliance, Gasunie and each of the two major Dutch law firms would separately be liable to pay Gazprom the rouble equivalent of:
- €57,389,778.13;
- £1,765; and
- US$5,000.
The conversion is to be made at the official exchange rate of the Central Bank of Russia on the payment date.
The penalty applicable to Gasunie and one of the two major Dutch law firms covers non-compliance with both the anti-enforcement and wider anti-suit prohibitions. For the second Dutch firm, the penalty is tied to non-compliance with the prohibition against enforcing the ICC award.
The court also ordered Gasunie and the two firms to reimburse Gazprom jointly for RUB 50,000 in court fees. The remaining claims were dismissed. The decision states that it may be challenged before the Arbitrazh Court of the North-Western District within one month.
Related kdb.legal Coverage
A comparable use of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 against counsel and arbitrators is discussed in the notorious “Wintershall” case: Arbitrators and Counsel face €7.5bn fine by Russian Court in case of continuation of arbitration proceedings.
