Russian Law Issues in Aircraft Leasing and Aviation Insurance Disputes

Aircraft leasing and aviation insurance disputes involving Russia are rarely about one legal system. A claim may be heard in London, Dublin, New York or another forum. The policy may be governed by English, Irish, New York or another law. The claimant may be a lessor, owner, financing party or insurer. The relevant aircraft may have been leased to a Russian airline, operated in Russia, registered outside Russia, re-registered in Russia, affected by export controls, or subject to conflicting regulatory and sanctions regimes.

For aviation litigators, insurance lawyers, Irish solicitors, London disputes teams and US counsel, the Russian law questions can be highly practical. They may affect causation, return obligations, repossession strategy, state action, permanent deprivation, sanctions-affected performance, Russian registration, maintenance, payment, settlement and enforcement risk.

This article explains where foreign counsel may need independent Russian law analysis in aircraft leasing and aviation insurance disputes involving Russia. It does not provide advice on English, Irish, EU, UK or US sanctions law, insurance coverage law or aviation regulatory law outside Russia. Those questions should be handled by the lawyers qualified in the relevant jurisdiction. The focus here is Russian law analysis for foreign counsel.

Russia-related aircraft leasing disputes often begin with an insurance question: was there a covered loss, which policy responds, what was the proximate cause, when did the loss occur, and how should loss be measured?

But behind those coverage issues may be Russian law facts and Russian legal consequences. A court or tribunal may need to understand what Russian government measures did, what Russian airlines were permitted or prohibited from doing, whether aircraft could lawfully be exported or returned, whether registration or airworthiness rules changed, and how Russian legal restrictions affected performance.

The English Commercial Court’s Russian Aircraft Lessor Policy Claims judgment illustrates the type of factual and legal matrix that can arise. The judgment concerned claims under insurance policies by aircraft leasing companies in respect of aircraft and engines said to have been lost following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The claimants had leased aircraft, and in some cases engines, to Russian airlines or airlines operating in Russia; after the invasion, default and termination notices were issued, and the aircraft and engines were not returned.

That does not mean a Russian law expert decides the insurance case. The construction of the policy, the governing law of the policy and the procedural strategy remain matters for the relevant litigation team. The Russian law expert’s role is narrower: to explain the Russian legal environment in which the aircraft, airlines, lessors and regulators operated.

The aviation leasing disputes arising from aircraft retained in Russia have generated major proceedings in several jurisdictions. Reuters reported in February 2025 that lessors were suing insurers around the world over losses of at least $8 billion after more than 400 planes were stranded in Russia following sanctions, and that an Irish High Court trial concerned around €2.5 billion of insurance claims.

Ireland is particularly important because of its role in global aircraft leasing. Reuters reported that more than 60% of the world’s leased aircraft are owned or managed in Ireland, making Dublin a natural centre for related disputes.

London has also been a major forum. In June 2025, the English Commercial Court handed down a 230-page judgment in the Russian Aircraft Lessor Policy Claims. In March 2026, war risks insurers were granted permission to appeal on issues including the construction of contingent aviation insurance and whether there had been a total loss of aircraft in Russia since the invasion.

For foreign counsel, this means Russian law analysis may be needed not only at trial, but also in pleadings, expert evidence, settlement, appeal strategy, enforcement and related proceedings.

One of the central Russian law issues in aircraft leasing disputes is whether Russian measures restricted the export or return of aircraft.

The English Commercial Court judgment discussed Russian Presidential Decree 100, Government Resolution 311 and Government Resolution 312. The judgment recorded that Government Resolution 311 banned the export from Russia of certain listed goods, including aircraft and aircraft engines, with state bodies responsible for control over the ban. It also recorded that Government Resolution 312 introduced a permit-based procedure for exports of certain goods to Eurasian Economic Union member states, including aircraft and engines.

These measures can matter because the legal ability to return an aircraft may affect arguments about causation, loss, deprivation, mitigation, settlement and the conduct of Russian airlines. A Russian law expert can analyse the relevant Russian measures, their dates, scope, amendments, official publication, exceptions, permit procedures and practical legal effect.

The expert should also identify uncertainty. Russian measures may have changed over time. Their effect may depend on the specific aircraft, airline, route, owner, lessor, destination, export purpose and regulatory correspondence.

Foreign counsel may also need Russian law input on registration and airworthiness.

Russian measures adopted after February 2022 made it possible for Russian authorities to issue local documents for foreign-leased aircraft operating in Russia. The English Commercial Court judgment recorded that Federal Law No. 56-FZ amended the Russian Air Code and related legislation, making it possible for the Russian aviation authority to issue certificates of airworthiness for foreign-leased aircraft on the Russian registry so that those aircraft could continue operating in Russia.

UNCTAD’s Investment Policy Monitor also summarises Russian Government Decrees No. 411 and No. 412 of 19 March 2022 as permitting Russian airlines to enter leased aircraft belonging to foreign companies from sanctioning states into the Russian State Register, with the lessee responsible for maintenance and repair and with lease payments to be made taking into account earlier Russian restrictions.

For aviation disputes, this may raise Russian law questions such as:

• what registration steps were available or required under Russian law;
• whether a foreign lessor’s consent was required or bypassed;
• whether Russian certificates or registrations affected operation;
• whether Russian domestic rules conflicted with foreign registration or deregistration steps;
• whether Russian documents changed the practical ability to remove the aircraft from Russia;
• what legal effect Russian registration records may have in later Russian proceedings.

A Russian law expert can explain Russian legal documents and procedural steps in a form usable by foreign lawyers and expert teams.

Aviation disputes involving Russia often sit at the intersection of EU, UK, US and Russian law.

EU aviation sanctions are extensive. EASA’s Russia sanctions FAQ identifies Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 as the EU instrument containing sectoral measures, including export bans and aviation measures such as the overflight ban. EASA also states that Article 3c prohibits technical assistance or other services related to aviation or space goods and technology, directly or indirectly, to persons in Russia or for use in Russia.

The United States imposed aviation-related export controls as well. BIS stated that, effective 24 February 2022, it imposed expansive controls on aviation-related items destined for Russia, including a new licence requirement for specified aircraft or aircraft parts. BIS also explained that subsequent actions such as refuelling, maintenance, repair, spare parts or services for listed aircraft could fall within EAR prohibitions.

The UK regime contains specific aviation insurance and reinsurance restrictions. Regulation 29A of the Russia sanctions regulations prohibits directly or indirectly providing insurance or reinsurance services relating to aviation and space goods or technology to persons connected with Russia or for use in Russia.

These are not Russian law issues. They should be handled by EU, UK or US sanctions counsel. But Russian law still needs separate analysis. A Russian airline may argue that Russian measures prevented return. A lessor may need to understand Russian permissions or export bans. An insurer may need Russian law input on state action, causation or practical impossibility. A settlement may require Russian payment, ownership transfer, registration or regulatory steps.

The safest approach is coordinated work: sanctions counsel handles sanctions law; aviation counsel handles aviation regulatory issues; insurance counsel handles coverage; the Russian law expert addresses Russian legal measures and their consequences.

Aircraft leasing disputes often involve notices of default, termination notices, repossession demands and correspondence with Russian airlines or regulators. Russian law may be relevant even where the lease itself is governed by another law.

For example, foreign counsel may need to understand:

• whether Russian law restricted the lessee’s ability to return the aircraft;
• whether Russian permissions were theoretically available and realistically obtainable;
• whether Russian customs or export rules applied to a return flight;
• whether the aircraft could leave Russia as a transport vehicle of international carriage or only through export processing;
• whether a Russian airline’s conduct was driven by private commercial choice, state direction or binding Russian rules;
• whether Russian authorities could prevent physical removal.

These questions may not be answerable by reading one decree. They may require analysis of Russian statutes, government resolutions, official guidance, customs law, aviation law, court practice, regulatory communications and evidence of how the measures operated in practice.

In aviation insurance litigation, Russian law issues may feed into causation and loss arguments. The expert should not decide the policy question. But Russian law may help the court understand the legal environment that affected the aircraft.

The English Commercial Court judgment recorded Russian law expert evidence on issues relating to the scope and effect of Government Resolution 311. The judgment described GR 311 as central to arguments about whether a restraint or detention was the proximate cause of the loss.

The court ultimately found, at first instance, that GR 311 should be regarded as the proximate cause of the loss and that it was a ban on export and return of the aircraft, effective in the sense that no returns occurred after its publication except in a few cases where permission was given. As noted above, permission to appeal has since been granted on issues including whether there had been a total loss, so foreign counsel should treat the case as an important reference point rather than a complete answer for other disputes.

For future matters, a Russian law expert may be asked to analyse:

• whether a Russian measure was legally binding;
• whether it applied to the specific aircraft or engine;
• whether export permission was legally possible;
• whether permission was practically realistic;
• whether Russian courts would likely uphold the measure;
• whether Russian state interests affected the legal analysis;
• whether the aircraft’s retention was attributable to state action, airline conduct or both.

These questions can be highly fact-sensitive. The answer may depend on the date, aircraft status, airline, route, registry, notices and government communications.

A Russian law expert should not interpret an English, Irish or New York insurance policy unless separately qualified and instructed to do so. But Russian law analysis can help insurance counsel address the factual and legal background to coverage issues.

For example, Russian law may be relevant to:

• the legal effect of Russian export bans;
• whether a Russian airline was legally permitted to return the aircraft;
• whether government permission was required;
• whether Russian registration affected control or operation;
• whether a Russian measure was mandatory or discretionary;
• whether Russian law created payment restrictions;
• whether local insurance, reinsurance or settlement mechanics were affected;
• whether Russian court proceedings could affect recovery.

In other words, the Russian law expert supplies the Russian legal analysis. Insurance counsel then decides how that analysis fits the policy wording, coverage arguments and litigation strategy.

Aircraft leasing disputes may also involve unpaid rent, reserves, maintenance obligations, insurance obligations, indemnities, settlement payments or purchase arrangements. Russian law may affect how payments are made, whether special accounts are required, whether approvals are needed, and whether Russian parties can perform certain obligations.

This is especially important in settlement. A settlement with a Russian airline, Russian insurer or Russian entity may require more than commercial agreement. It may require Russian regulatory permissions, currency-control analysis, payment-route analysis, registration steps, transfer documents or local implementation.

A Russian law expert can help foreign counsel identify what Russian law steps may be required, while local sanctions counsel addresses whether the foreign party may lawfully participate in the transaction under applicable EU, UK, US or other sanctions regimes.

Aviation disputes involving Russian aircraft may also give rise to Russian court proceedings, enforcement issues or asset-related strategy.

Potential Russian law questions include:

• whether the Russian airline or insurer has started proceedings in a Russian arbitrazh court;
• whether Russian proceedings affect foreign arbitration or litigation;
• whether Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code may be invoked in a sanctions-affected dispute;
• whether a Russian judgment or order may affect assets in Russia;
• whether enforcement of a foreign judgment or award in Russia is realistic;
• whether Russian insolvency proceedings involving an airline, insurer or guarantor are relevant;
• whether Russian court documents need to be explained to a foreign court or tribunal.

The Russian law expert’s role is not to run the foreign enforcement strategy. It is to explain Russian procedural and substantive law risks so that foreign counsel can decide how those risks affect the wider case.

Aviation disputes are document-heavy. A focused instruction pack helps the expert work efficiently.

The best questions are neutral, precise and based on stated assumptions.

Poor question:
“Please confirm that Russia unlawfully seized the aircraft.”

Better question:
“Under Russian law, what government measures, regulatory steps or legal restrictions applied to the export or return of the aircraft identified in the schedule, assuming the facts set out in the instructions?”

Poor question:
“Please say that the Russian airline could have returned the aircraft.”

Better question:
“Assuming the lease termination notices were sent on the dates identified, what Russian legal restrictions or permissions would have been relevant to the airline’s ability to return the aircraft from Russia?”

Poor question:
“Please support our causation case.”

Better question:
“What Russian legal measures were in force between February and March 2022, and how did they affect the legal ability of Russian airlines to export, return, operate or register foreign-leased aircraft?”

Other useful questions include:

• What was the legal effect of the relevant Russian government resolutions?
• Did Russian law permit or require local registration of foreign-leased aircraft?
• What Russian permissions were required for export or return?
• Were any exceptions available, and how would they likely be interpreted under Russian law?
• What was the Russian law status of local certificates of airworthiness?
• Did Russian law restrict payments under aircraft lease agreements?
• Could a Russian court challenge or uphold the relevant measures?
• What Russian procedural risks arise from existing or threatened Russian proceedings?
• What Russian law issues should be considered before settlement?

These questions help the expert provide independent analysis rather than advocacy.

Aviation insurance disputes usually involve several specialist teams: insurance counsel, aviation regulatory lawyers, sanctions lawyers, technical experts, valuation experts, factual witnesses and local counsel.

The Russian law expert should work alongside those teams, not replace them.

The expert can provide Russian law memoranda, court-ready reports, arbitration reports, declarations, affidavits, reply reports, conference support and hearing preparation. The analysis should identify Russian sources, explain the legal framework, apply Russian law to the assumed facts and state any limits or uncertainty.

Independence matters. A credible Russian law opinion should not overstate the position, ignore contrary arguments or use advocacy language. If a Russian law issue is uncertain, fact-sensitive or dependent on evolving measures, the expert should say so.

I assist aviation litigators, insurance lawyers, Irish solicitors, London disputes teams, US counsel, arbitration lawyers and in-house legal departments with independent Russian law analysis in aircraft leasing and aviation insurance disputes involving Russia.

Support may include Russian law opinions, expert reports, litigation memoranda, Rule 44.1 declarations, arbitration reports, Russian regulatory analysis, Russian proceedings review, sanctions-affected performance analysis and settlement implementation risk review.

For an initial conflict and scope review, please send the parties’ names, aircraft list, forum, procedural deadline, short case summary, relevant Russian law issue and the type of document required.