The Wintershall Dea Saga is continuing and in its “third round” now. This time, the geographical scope is further expanded, and old problems are addressed with a renewed strategy.
We have already covered the development that Russian courts have awarded claims of more than EUR 7.5bn against counsel, arbitrators and Wintershall Dea itself (read more here and here) in the Wintershall Dea v. Russian Federation investment arbitration dispute by Russian courts. Now, the playing field is extended (or returned) to Dubai.
- Brief Recap: What has happened so far?
The Wintershall Dea v. Russia dispute arose from investment arbitration proceedings initiated by Wintershall Dea GmbH against the Russian Federation under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), following Russia’s presidential decree No. 965 and No. 966 imposing special economic measures in the energy sector. The seat of arbitration is Dubai.
In September 2025, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction barring Wintershall, its counsel Aurelius Cotta and the arbitral tribunal from continuing any arbitration proceedings. This Russian anti-arbitration injunction further imposed a hefty penalty of EUR 7.5 billion in the event of non-compliance. - The New Developments
Following this anti-arbitration injunction, an arbitral tribunal under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a series of “anti-anti-suit injunctions” (AASI), instructing Russia to discontinue the Russian court proceedings, both in Russia and abroad. Subsequently, Wintershall Dea sought judicial assistance from the court at the seat of arbitration – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts – to recognize and enforce the AASI.
On 19 November 2025, the DIFC Court under Judge Jeremy Cook granted, on an interim basis, recognition and enforcement of the AASI rendered by the tribunal. The court ordered the Russian Federation to immediately withdraw the Prosecutor General’s application for monetary sanctions in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and to halt hearings scheduled for 20 November 2025. Furthermore, the DIFC Court imposed strict prohibitions on the Russian Federation, its Prosecutor General, and other state bodies from filing any related applications before the Russian courts pending the Dubai court’s further decision. Failure to comply could incur penalties including fines, imprisonment and asset confiscation.
The rather direct wording of the DIFC’s penal notice is reported to read as follows:
“IF YOU, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, DISOBEY THE ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE FINED OR REFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DUBAI, FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED.
ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS RUSSIA TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY ALSO BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE REFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DUBAI, IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR ASSETS SEIZED.”
The Moscow Arbitrazh Court, upon the Russian Prosecutor General’s request, subsequently clarified that it had considered the content of the DIFC order as an “interference” with Russia’s sovereign judicial system and therefore ruled on imposing the EUR 7.5 billion penalty for violation of its anti-arbitration injunction.
With this development, the geographical scope of the proceedings expanded, with the DIFC proceedings in Dubai now also being part of the whole Wintershall Dea saga. - The New Legal Issues
The new issues are both of a tactical and legal nature.
Justice Mr. Jeremy Cooke declined to recuse himself from his role in Dubia due to alleged anti-Russian and anti-Muslim bias. Those allegations were rejected by Cooke, who stayed on the case (as of December 2025).
Previously, DIFC Justice Mr. Shamlan Al Sawalehi stepped down from his role in this matter due to concerns about his participation on the board of the Russian Arbitration Centre.
From a legal perspective, the case does not contain as many flashy highlights as the previous case with the imposition of the EUR 7.5 billion penalty itself.
Now, there is a direct conflict between the Russian court’s anti-arbitration injunction and financial penalty, and the DIFC Court’s recognition of the AASI, which stipulates that Russia must withdraw its domestic court applications. Also, the Russian court considers the DIFC order an impermissible interference in Russia’s sovereign judicial process, directly invoking the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs. - New Old Legal Implications?!
This new old court order is yet another one in a long line of similar orders with an inherently similar pattern of argumentation and the same outcome: reprimanding the violation of (sovereign) rights of the Russian Federation. In particular:
According to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court, it relied on the principle that sovereign acts of a state (and judicial decisions enforcing them) should not be questioned by courts in other countries – a position rooted in both common law and international law traditions.
The Russian judgment asserts that foreign court orders, such as the one by the DIFC, have no binding effect and cannot impinge on Russia’s domestic legal sovereignty.
The mutual issuance and cross-referencing of anti-suit, anti-arbitration, and now anti-anti-suit injunctions increases legal uncertainty and the risk of a “parallel enforcement trench warfare”. Such an escalation might further lead to “Arbitration Warfare” which should be avoided, at least for the sake of legal certainty.
Again, the Russian injunction imposes financial liability not only for investors and their counsel, but also for individual arbitrators. Such a potential escalation raises questions not only about their personal safety but also the legal exposure of arbitrators and potential repercussions, depending on what parties (and states) are involved. - Conclusion
Once again, the developments at the DIFC mark another escalation in the Wintershall v. Russia saga and set a significant precedent in sanctions-era investor-state arbitration. For the first time, a third-country court – the DIFC – has recognized and ordered enforcement of an anti-anti-suit injunction against a state in response to a Russian court’s anti-arbitration order. The Moscow Arbitrazh Court has responded by reaffirming its exclusive jurisdiction, dismissing the DIFC’s intervention as unlawful interference, and enforcing a record-high penalty against the claimants, their counsel and the tribunal.
This legal confrontation demonstrates the limited reach of cross-border judicial and arbitral orders where there is contestation at the level of international sovereignty. It further emphasises the need for careful risk analysis by global investors and their advisers engaging in arbitration against states subject to restrictive measures or designated as “unfriendly” jurisdictions. Ultimately, these cases highlight the increasing “weaponisation” of court procedure in international investment disputes – a development with far-reaching consequences for the rule of law, international business and the future of arbitration itself.