Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code: Why Foreign Lawyers Should Care

For arbitration counsel, EU/UK/US disputes lawyers and sanctions teams, Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code is no longer a remote Russian procedural provision. It can affect where a dispute is heard, whether a foreign arbitration clause is challenged in Russia, whether a party faces parallel Russian proceedings, and whether a Russian court may issue an anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunction backed by substantial monetary exposure.

The practical risk is simple to describe but difficult to manage: a contract may provide for LCIA, ICC, SCC, SIAC, UNCITRAL or another foreign forum, yet a Russian party affected by sanctions may ask a Russian state commercial court to treat the foreign forum as unavailable or impaired and to restrain foreign proceedings.

Foreign counsel therefore need more than a general sanctions note. They may need a case-specific Russian law analysis of whether Articles 248.1 and 248.2 could be invoked, how Russian courts may approach the dispute, what procedural steps may follow, and what enforcement or settlement risks may arise.

This article explains the issue from the perspective of a Russian law expert assisting foreign counsel. It is not UK, EU or US sanctions advice. Sanctions advice should be provided by appropriately qualified local counsel. The focus here is Russian law analysis for foreign lawyers working on arbitration, litigation and sanctions-affected disputes.

When foreign lawyers refer to “Article 248 risk”, they usually mean the combined effect of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code.

Russian arbitrazh courts are state commercial courts. They should not be confused with arbitral tribunals. Articles 248.1 and 248.2 concern the jurisdiction of Russian state commercial courts and the power of those courts to restrain certain foreign court or arbitration proceedings.

The provisions were introduced by Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 8 June 2020. Article 248.1 is headed, in substance, as the exclusive competence of Russian arbitrazh courts in disputes involving persons subject to restrictive measures. Article 248.2 is headed as a prohibition on initiating or continuing proceedings in disputes involving such persons.

For foreign lawyers, the key point is not just the wording of the statute. The important question is how these provisions may operate in a real dispute involving a sanctioned Russian party, a sanctions-affected transaction, a foreign arbitration clause, Russian assets or parallel proceedings.

Article 248.1 provides a basis for arguing that certain sanctions-related disputes fall within the exclusive competence of Russian arbitrazh courts.

In broad terms, Article 248.1 refers to two categories: disputes involving persons subject to restrictive measures imposed by a foreign state or foreign state association, and disputes where the basis of the dispute is restrictive measures imposed in relation to Russian citizens or Russian legal entities. The current text also identifies categories of persons who may fall within the provision, including Russian citizens, Russian legal entities and, in some circumstances, foreign legal entities affected by restrictive measures connected with measures against Russian citizens or Russian legal entities.

This matters because the argument is not limited to a simple “sanctioned party v non-sanctioned party” structure. Depending on the facts, a Russian party may argue that the dispute itself is sanctions-affected, or that restrictive measures impair access to the contractually chosen forum.

Article 248.1 also contains an important qualification. If the parties have agreed to submit disputes to a foreign court or international commercial arbitration outside Russia, that agreement is not automatically irrelevant. However, Article 248.1 may still be invoked where the foreign court or arbitration agreement is said to be unenforceable because restrictive measures create obstacles to access to justice for one of the persons participating in the dispute.

This is where many practical problems arise. Foreign counsel may consider the arbitration agreement valid and binding under the contract and the law of the seat. The Russian party may argue in Russia that sanctions have made that agreement ineffective or incapable of performance. The result can be a jurisdictional conflict, parallel proceedings and competing orders.

Article 248.2 provides the procedural mechanism.

A person against whom proceedings have been initiated in a foreign court or international commercial arbitration outside Russia, or where there is evidence that such proceedings will be initiated, may apply to the competent Russian arbitrazh court for an order prohibiting the initiation or continuation of those foreign proceedings.

The application must identify, among other things, the foreign claims already brought or expected, the circumstances said to confirm the exclusive competence of Russian arbitrazh courts, and any circumstances showing that the foreign court or arbitration agreement cannot be performed by a party to the dispute. The applicant must also attach documents confirming the foreign proceedings or intended proceedings and documents supporting the alleged exclusive competence of the Russian court.

In practical language, Article 248.2 can be used to seek what foreign lawyers often describe as a Russian anti-suit injunction or anti-arbitration injunction. It may seek to stop a claimant from starting or continuing arbitration or foreign court proceedings outside Russia.

The financial consequences can be serious. Article 248.2 allows the Russian court, on the applicant’s request, to award a monetary amount in favour of the applicant in case of non-compliance with the Russian court order. The amount must not exceed the claims brought in the foreign court or arbitration and the legal costs incurred by the party to the dispute.

This is why Article 248 risk cannot be treated as a purely procedural issue. It may create commercial pressure, enforcement issues, settlement complications and board-level risk.

Many foreign counsel first encounter Article 248 in a case with a carefully drafted arbitration clause. The contract may provide for foreign law, foreign seat, foreign institution and foreign language. From the perspective of arbitration counsel, the clause may look robust.

Article 248 changes the risk analysis because the Russian court may be asked to treat the foreign forum agreement as impaired by sanctions or otherwise inoperable for the Russian party. International law firms have noted that Articles 248.1 and 248.2 have been used by Russian parties to argue that arbitration agreements outside Russia are unenforceable or inoperable in sanctions-affected circumstances.

That does not mean every arbitration clause will fail, or that every Russian party can automatically move the dispute to Russia. It means foreign counsel should analyse the Russian law risk early, especially where the counterparty is Russian, sanctioned, state-linked, strategically important, asset-holding in Russia, or likely to resist foreign proceedings.

The key issue is not only whether the arbitration clause is valid under the law of the seat. The separate Russian law question is whether a Russian court may assume jurisdiction or issue relief under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 despite that clause.

Article 248 often creates a parallel-proceedings problem.

A foreign party may commence arbitration in London, Paris, Stockholm, Geneva, Singapore or another forum. The Russian party may then bring proceedings in a Russian arbitrazh court, or apply under Article 248.2 to restrain the foreign arbitration. The arbitral tribunal may proceed. The Russian court may proceed. Foreign courts may be asked to grant anti-suit or anti-anti-suit relief. Enforcement questions may later arise in multiple jurisdictions.

For counsel, the strategic question is not simply “which forum is correct?” It is also:
Can the client safely continue the foreign proceedings?
Does the client have assets in Russia?
Could a Russian monetary award or penalty be pursued?
Could the Russian party seek to use the Article 248 order in negotiations?
Could the Russian proceedings affect enforcement, settlement or asset strategy?
Could the dispute become harder to resolve because each side is exposed in a different forum?

Freshfields reported that Russian courts invoked Article 248 more than 200 times in 2024 to assume exclusive jurisdiction or issue anti-arbitration injunctions, and that anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions under Article 248.2 can be backed by fines as large as the amount in dispute.

Whether those figures apply to a particular matter is a case-specific question. But they illustrate why Article 248 analysis is now a practical workstream in Russia-related arbitration and disputes.

Article 248 also affects enforcement strategy.

A foreign claimant may obtain an arbitral award or foreign judgment, but later face enforcement issues in Russia. A Russian party may obtain a Russian judgment, injunction or monetary award under Article 248.2 and seek to use it in Russia or elsewhere. The practical value of each order depends on assets, jurisdictions, sanctions restrictions, recognition rules and local court strategy.

In December 2024, the Council of the European Union announced measures prohibiting the recognition or enforcement in the EU of rulings issued by Russian courts based on Article 248 of the Russian Arbitration Procedure Code, noting that such rulings had prevented parties from commencing or continuing proceedings outside Russia and had often resulted in disproportionately high financial penalties for European companies.

That EU measure may be important for EU operators, but it does not remove every risk. It does not answer Russian law questions inside Russia. It does not necessarily solve issues involving non-EU assets, Russian enforcement steps, settlement leverage, insolvency, or proceedings involving parties outside the EU. UK and US counsel also need separate local advice on the effect of sanctions, recognition rules, enforcement strategy and any available court relief.

A Russian law expert can help identify what the Russian order means, how it was obtained, what procedural stage it has reached, what appeal or cassation options exist, and what Russian law consequences may follow.

Foreign lawyers should consider instructing a Russian law expert where Article 248 is not merely theoretical but could affect strategy, procedure or risk.

A Russian law expert may be useful in the following situations:

1. A Russian party is sanctioned or says it is affected by sanctions.
2. The dispute arises from blocked payment, non-performance, termination, supply interruption, asset freezing, contract frustration or regulatory restrictions connected with sanctions.
3. The contract contains a foreign court or arbitration clause, but the Russian party threatens to bring proceedings in Russia.
4. The Russian party has already filed an Article 248.1 claim or Article 248.2 application.
5. A Russian court has issued an anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunction.
6. The foreign party has assets, subsidiaries, receivables, counterparties or enforcement exposure in Russia.
7. The matter involves parallel Russian and foreign proceedings.
8. Settlement terms may be affected by Russian mandatory rules, sanctions-related restrictions or Russian court orders.
9. The foreign legal team needs to explain Article 248 risk to a tribunal, foreign court, client, board, insurer or funder.

The earlier the issue is analysed, the more useful the advice is. If Article 248 is considered only after a Russian injunction has already been issued, options may be narrower and timing more difficult.

A practical Article 248 risk review usually starts with documents, not abstract legal questions.


The Russian law expert does not need every document in the case at the first stage. A focused case summary, contract, parties list, procedural status and key Russian law questions may be enough for an initial conflict and scope review.

Before instructing a Russian law expert, foreign counsel should define the problem clearly. The following questions are useful.

Has the Russian party been sanctioned, or does it argue that sanctions affect access to justice?
Is the dispute itself based on sanctions, counter-sanctions, blocked performance, payment restrictions or asset freezing?
Is there a foreign arbitration or jurisdiction clause?
Has any Russian proceeding already been started?
Has an Article 248.2 application been filed or threatened?
What foreign proceedings have been started, and what documents evidence them?
What is the amount in dispute?
Does the client have assets or operational exposure in Russia?
Is the client subject to EU, UK, US or other sanctions restrictions that affect litigation strategy?
Does the legal team need an internal memorandum, expert opinion, arbitration report, witness statement support or court-ready Russian law report?
What is the deadline?

These questions help the expert provide a targeted analysis rather than a general discussion of Article 248.

The questions to the expert should be neutral and precise.

Poor question:
“Please confirm that the Russian party has no basis to use Article 248.”

Better question:
“On the facts and documents provided, what arguments could be advanced under Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, and what are the main Russian law objections to those arguments?”

Poor question:
“Please explain why the arbitration clause is valid.”

Better question:
“Assuming the contract contains the arbitration clause set out in the instructions, how may a Russian arbitrazh court assess the clause in the context of Article 248.1 and alleged sanctions-related obstacles to access to justice?”

Poor question:
“Please tell us the Russian court order is unenforceable.”

Better question:
“What Russian law consequences may follow from the Article 248.2 order, what monetary exposure may be sought under Russian law, and what procedural remedies or appeals may be available in Russia?”

Good Article 248 questions should cover both sides of the argument. This makes the expert analysis more credible and more useful for foreign counsel.

Article 248 matters often sit at the intersection of Russian law, sanctions law, arbitration law and enforcement strategy. No single expert should pretend to cover everything.

EU, UK and US sanctions advice should be handled by qualified local sanctions counsel. Arbitration strategy should be handled by arbitration counsel. Recognition and enforcement outside Russia should be handled by local lawyers in the relevant jurisdictions.

The Russian law expert’s role is narrower but important: to explain Russian procedural law, Russian court practice, Russian counter-sanctions context, the likely use of Articles 248.1 and 248.2, Russian procedural consequences, and Russian enforcement risk.

This division of responsibility helps avoid confusion. It also produces better advice for the client.

I assist foreign law firms, arbitration counsel, disputes teams and in-house legal departments with independent Russian law analysis for sanctions-affected disputes, Russian proceedings, Article 248 risk, anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, enforcement risk and parallel proceedings.

For an initial review, please send the parties’ names for conflict check, the forum, procedural deadline, contract dispute clause, short case summary, sanctions context and any Russian court documents or threats received.